Business of Medicine

When Stephanie Mejia Arciñiega drove her friend to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Ann Arbor, Mich., they were surrounded by anti-abortion protesters as soon as they tried to park.

“They come up to your car super fast,” Ms. Mejia Arciñiega said. “You don’t want to run their feet over, so we had to stop and be like, ‘OK, no thank you.’ But then they started throwing a bunch of papers and resources at us. We tried to go inside, but we couldn’t.”

The clinic, which offers abortion care as well as birth control, cancer screenings, and STD treatment, has long been the target of anti-abortion protesters. Protesters’ efforts to limit abortions in the state may soon get a huge boost, if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade.

In Michigan, this would have an immediate impact. Overnight, nearly all abortions would become a felony carrying a penalty of up to 4 years, even in cases of rape and incest. That’s because an old state law, last updated in 1931, was never repealed, even after Roe made it unenforceable in 1973.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said she won’t enforce the law if it springs back into effect. But Michigan has 83 local county prosecutors, and Ms. Nessel said they could enforce the 1931 law. “I don’t think that I have the authority to tell the duly elected county prosecutors what they can and what they cannot charge,” Ms. Nessel told journalists.

Ms. Mejia Arciñiega, 18, who drove her friend to the Ann Arbor clinic, said she never imagined a world where abortion is illegal. “You wouldn’t think that in 2022, we’d be worrying about women’s rights, reproduction rights,” she said. “You wouldn’t want someone young that isn’t ready [to] have to have a baby because the law says ‘No.’ It’s not fair.”

The way the old state law is written, Ms. Nessel said, it’s possible that prosecutors could go after anyone who provides an abortion, as well as those who take medications to end their own pregnancies.

That could “create a scenario where if a woman has self-aborted and she seeks medical care after that, will the doctor then have to report that to law enforcement?”

Speaking to reporters, Ms. Nessel also discussed the abortion she had years ago – one that would be illegal in the state if Roe falls. She was pregnant with triplets and doctors told her the embryos weren’t growing in utero, she said.

“And I was told very, very specifically that there was no way that all three would make it to term. But if I aborted one, that it was possible that the other two might live,” Ms. Nessel said. “I took my doctor’s advice … And you know what? It turned out that he was right. And now I have two beautiful sons.”

The 1931 law allows just one exemption: Abortions “to preserve the life” of the woman. Yet doctors say they have no idea how to interpret that. Consider a woman who has severe heart disease with a 20%-30% chance of dying during pregnancy.

“Is that enough of a chance?” asked Dr. Lisa Harris, a University of Michigan professor and ob.gyn., speaking on Michigan Radio’s Stateside. “I hate to even put it that way, but is that enough of a chance of dying that that person would qualify under Michigan’s ban for a lifesaving abortion? Or would their risk of dying need to be 50% or 100%?”

Or what if a pregnant person has cancer and needs to end the pregnancy to begin chemotherapy? “There’s not an imminent risk of dying, but there might be a risk of dying years later if they didn’t have chemotherapy,” Dr. Harris said. “So these are the kind of situations doctors are wondering about.”

It’s also unclear whether a woman whose pregnancy would become life-threatening only in its later stages would be required to delay termination until then.

“We see people with things like kidney disease or other problems, where they’re actually OK during early pregnancy. But if the pregnancy were to continue and they were to give birth, then they would have a very high chance of dying,” Dr. Harris explained.

The state legislature is controlled by Republicans, but Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to block the 1931 law from taking effect. Planned Parenthood filed a similar suit as well. And a campaign to collect enough signatures is underway to put abortion on the ballot in November. But that would be months after the U.S. Supreme Court makes its final ruling on Roe, which is expected in late June or early July.

In the meantime, the confusion and uncertainty caused by the 1931 law could be enough for some health care professionals to stop offering abortions, Ms. Nessel said.

“I think that this will have the kind of chilling effect that doctors just simply will not perform this procedure really under any set of circumstances, because they don’t want to get dragged into court,” she said. “They don’t want to face the possibility of being prosecuted and the possibility of going to jail or prison. So I think that, honestly, you’ll have doctors that really have to violate their Hippocratic oath and just say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t help you.’ ”

This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. Kate Wells is a reporter with Michigan Radio.

When Stephanie Mejia Arciñiega drove her friend to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Ann Arbor, Mich., they were surrounded by anti-abortion protesters as soon as they tried to park.

“They come up to your car super fast,” Ms. Mejia Arciñiega said. “You don’t want to run their feet over, so we had to stop and be like, ‘OK, no thank you.’ But then they started throwing a bunch of papers and resources at us. We tried to go inside, but we couldn’t.”

The clinic, which offers abortion care as well as birth control, cancer screenings, and STD treatment, has long been the target of anti-abortion protesters. Protesters’ efforts to limit abortions in the state may soon get a huge boost, if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade.

In Michigan, this would have an immediate impact. Overnight, nearly all abortions would become a felony carrying a penalty of up to 4 years, even in cases of rape and incest. That’s because an old state law, last updated in 1931, was never repealed, even after Roe made it unenforceable in 1973.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said she won’t enforce the law if it springs back into effect. But Michigan has 83 local county prosecutors, and Ms. Nessel said they could enforce the 1931 law. “I don’t think that I have the authority to tell the duly elected county prosecutors what they can and what they cannot charge,” Ms. Nessel told journalists.

Ms. Mejia Arciñiega, 18, who drove her friend to the Ann Arbor clinic, said she never imagined a world where abortion is illegal. “You wouldn’t think that in 2022, we’d be worrying about women’s rights, reproduction rights,” she said. “You wouldn’t want someone young that isn’t ready [to] have to have a baby because the law says ‘No.’ It’s not fair.”

The way the old state law is written, Ms. Nessel said, it’s possible that prosecutors could go after anyone who provides an abortion, as well as those who take medications to end their own pregnancies.

That could “create a scenario where if a woman has self-aborted and she seeks medical care after that, will the doctor then have to report that to law enforcement?”

Speaking to reporters, Ms. Nessel also discussed the abortion she had years ago – one that would be illegal in the state if Roe falls. She was pregnant with triplets and doctors told her the embryos weren’t growing in utero, she said.

“And I was told very, very specifically that there was no way that all three would make it to term. But if I aborted one, that it was possible that the other two might live,” Ms. Nessel said. “I took my doctor’s advice … And you know what? It turned out that he was right. And now I have two beautiful sons.”

The 1931 law allows just one exemption: Abortions “to preserve the life” of the woman. Yet doctors say they have no idea how to interpret that. Consider a woman who has severe heart disease with a 20%-30% chance of dying during pregnancy.

“Is that enough of a chance?” asked Dr. Lisa Harris, a University of Michigan professor and ob.gyn., speaking on Michigan Radio’s Stateside. “I hate to even put it that way, but is that enough of a chance of dying that that person would qualify under Michigan’s ban for a lifesaving abortion? Or would their risk of dying need to be 50% or 100%?”

Or what if a pregnant person has cancer and needs to end the pregnancy to begin chemotherapy? “There’s not an imminent risk of dying, but there might be a risk of dying years later if they didn’t have chemotherapy,” Dr. Harris said. “So these are the kind of situations doctors are wondering about.”

It’s also unclear whether a woman whose pregnancy would become life-threatening only in its later stages would be required to delay termination until then.

“We see people with things like kidney disease or other problems, where they’re actually OK during early pregnancy. But if the pregnancy were to continue and they were to give birth, then they would have a very high chance of dying,” Dr. Harris explained.

The state legislature is controlled by Republicans, but Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to block the 1931 law from taking effect. Planned Parenthood filed a similar suit as well. And a campaign to collect enough signatures is underway to put abortion on the ballot in November. But that would be months after the U.S. Supreme Court makes its final ruling on Roe, which is expected in late June or early July.

In the meantime, the confusion and uncertainty caused by the 1931 law could be enough for some health care professionals to stop offering abortions, Ms. Nessel said.

“I think that this will have the kind of chilling effect that doctors just simply will not perform this procedure really under any set of circumstances, because they don’t want to get dragged into court,” she said. “They don’t want to face the possibility of being prosecuted and the possibility of going to jail or prison. So I think that, honestly, you’ll have doctors that really have to violate their Hippocratic oath and just say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t help you.’ ”

This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. Kate Wells is a reporter with Michigan Radio.

When Stephanie Mejia Arciñiega drove her friend to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Ann Arbor, Mich., they were surrounded by anti-abortion protesters as soon as they tried to park.

“They come up to your car super fast,” Ms. Mejia Arciñiega said. “You don’t want to run their feet over, so we had to stop and be like, ‘OK, no thank you.’ But then they started throwing a bunch of papers and resources at us. We tried to go inside, but we couldn’t.”

The clinic, which offers abortion care as well as birth control, cancer screenings, and STD treatment, has long been the target of anti-abortion protesters. Protesters’ efforts to limit abortions in the state may soon get a huge boost, if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade.

In Michigan, this would have an immediate impact. Overnight, nearly all abortions would become a felony carrying a penalty of up to 4 years, even in cases of rape and incest. That’s because an old state law, last updated in 1931, was never repealed, even after Roe made it unenforceable in 1973.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said she won’t enforce the law if it springs back into effect. But Michigan has 83 local county prosecutors, and Ms. Nessel said they could enforce the 1931 law. “I don’t think that I have the authority to tell the duly elected county prosecutors what they can and what they cannot charge,” Ms. Nessel told journalists.

Ms. Mejia Arciñiega, 18, who drove her friend to the Ann Arbor clinic, said she never imagined a world where abortion is illegal. “You wouldn’t think that in 2022, we’d be worrying about women’s rights, reproduction rights,” she said. “You wouldn’t want someone young that isn’t ready [to] have to have a baby because the law says ‘No.’ It’s not fair.”

The way the old state law is written, Ms. Nessel said, it’s possible that prosecutors could go after anyone who provides an abortion, as well as those who take medications to end their own pregnancies.

That could “create a scenario where if a woman has self-aborted and she seeks medical care after that, will the doctor then have to report that to law enforcement?”

Speaking to reporters, Ms. Nessel also discussed the abortion she had years ago – one that would be illegal in the state if Roe falls. She was pregnant with triplets and doctors told her the embryos weren’t growing in utero, she said.

“And I was told very, very specifically that there was no way that all three would make it to term. But if I aborted one, that it was possible that the other two might live,” Ms. Nessel said. “I took my doctor’s advice … And you know what? It turned out that he was right. And now I have two beautiful sons.”

The 1931 law allows just one exemption: Abortions “to preserve the life” of the woman. Yet doctors say they have no idea how to interpret that. Consider a woman who has severe heart disease with a 20%-30% chance of dying during pregnancy.

“Is that enough of a chance?” asked Dr. Lisa Harris, a University of Michigan professor and ob.gyn., speaking on Michigan Radio’s Stateside. “I hate to even put it that way, but is that enough of a chance of dying that that person would qualify under Michigan’s ban for a lifesaving abortion? Or would their risk of dying need to be 50% or 100%?”

Or what if a pregnant person has cancer and needs to end the pregnancy to begin chemotherapy? “There’s not an imminent risk of dying, but there might be a risk of dying years later if they didn’t have chemotherapy,” Dr. Harris said. “So these are the kind of situations doctors are wondering about.”

It’s also unclear whether a woman whose pregnancy would become life-threatening only in its later stages would be required to delay termination until then.

“We see people with things like kidney disease or other problems, where they’re actually OK during early pregnancy. But if the pregnancy were to continue and they were to give birth, then they would have a very high chance of dying,” Dr. Harris explained.

The state legislature is controlled by Republicans, but Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to block the 1931 law from taking effect. Planned Parenthood filed a similar suit as well. And a campaign to collect enough signatures is underway to put abortion on the ballot in November. But that would be months after the U.S. Supreme Court makes its final ruling on Roe, which is expected in late June or early July.

In the meantime, the confusion and uncertainty caused by the 1931 law could be enough for some health care professionals to stop offering abortions, Ms. Nessel said.

“I think that this will have the kind of chilling effect that doctors just simply will not perform this procedure really under any set of circumstances, because they don’t want to get dragged into court,” she said. “They don’t want to face the possibility of being prosecuted and the possibility of going to jail or prison. So I think that, honestly, you’ll have doctors that really have to violate their Hippocratic oath and just say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t help you.’ ”

This story is part of a partnership that includes Michigan Radio, NPR and KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. Kate Wells is a reporter with Michigan Radio.

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

WASHINGTON – Speaker after speaker, veteran emergency department physicians and nurses approached the podium for a May 4 press conference on the U.S. Capitol lawn across from the East Senate steps to describe violent incidents – being bitten, punched, slapped, kicked, choked, spat on, threatened – that they have both observed and have been subject to while working in EDs.

The press conference was cosponsored by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Emergency Nurses Association, which have partnered since 2019 on the No Silence on ED Violence campaign.

Fuse/thinkstockphotos.com

The numbers confirm their experience. A 2018 poll of 3,500 ED physicians nationwide, which was conducted by Marketing General and was reported at ACEP’s annual meeting, found that nearly half of respondents had been assaulted at work; 27% of them were injured from the assault. Nurses, who spend more time with patients, may face even higher rates.

Incidence was reported to be increasing in 2018, and that was before the social and psychological upheavals imposed by the COVID pandemic caused assaults on staff in the hospital to go up an estimated 200%-300%.

But what really grated was that more than 95% of such cases, mostly perpetrated by patients, were never prosecuted, said Jennifer Casaletto, MD, FACEP, a North Carolina emergency physician and president of the state’s ACEP chapter. “Hospital and law enforcement see violence as just part of the job in our EDs.”

It’s no secret that workplace violence is increasing, Dr. Casaletto said. Four weeks ago, she stitched up the face of a charge nurse who had been assaulted. The nurse didn’t report the incident because she didn’t believe anything would change.

“Listening to my colleagues, I know the terror they have felt in the moment – for themselves, their colleagues, their patients. I know that raw fear of being attacked, and the complex emotions that follow. I’ve been hit, bit, and punched and watched colleagues getting choked.”

Dr. Casaletto was present in the ED when an out-of-control patient clubbed a nurse with an IV pole as she tried to close the doors to other patients’ rooms. “Instinctively, I pulled my stethoscope from around my neck, hoping I wouldn’t be strangled with it.”

Tennessee emergency nurse Todd Haines, MSN, RN, AEMT, CEN, said he has stepped in to help pull patients off coworkers. “I’ve seen some staff so severely injured they could not return to the bedside. I’ve been verbally threatened. My family has been threatened by patients and their families,” he reported. “We’ve all seen it. And COVID has made some people even meaner. They just lose their minds, and ED staff take the brunt of their aggression. But then to report these incidents and hear: ‘It’s just part of your job,’ well, it’s not part of my job.”

Mr. Haines spent 10 years in law enforcement with a sheriff’s department in middle Tennessee and was on its special tactical response team before becoming an ED nurse. He said he saw many more verbal and physical assaults in 11 years in the ED than during his police career.

“I love emergency nursing at the bedside, but it got to the point where I took the first chance to leave the bedside. And I’m not alone. Other nurses are leaving in droves.” Mr. Haines now has a job directing a trauma program, and he volunteers on policy issues for the Tennessee ENA. But he worries about the toll of this violence on the ED workforce, with so many professionals already mulling over leaving the field because of job stress and burnout.

“We have to do something to keep experienced hospital emergency staff at the bedside.”

What’s the answer?

Also speaking at the press conference was Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who pledged to introduce the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Services Workers Act, which passed the House in April. This bill would direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue a standard requiring employers in health care and social services to develop and implement workplace violence prevention plans. It would cover a variety of health facilities but not doctor’s offices or home-based services.

An interim final standard would be due within a year of enactment, with a final version to follow. Covered employers would have 6 months to develop and implement their own comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans, with the meaningful participation of direct care employees, tailored for and specific to the conditions and hazards of their facility, informed by past violent incidents, and subject to the size and complexity of the setting.

The plan would also name an individual responsible for its implementation, would include staff training and education, and would require facilities to track incidents and prohibit retaliation against employees who reported incidents of workplace violence.

On Wednesday, Sen. Baldwin called for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to fast-track this bill, but that was opposed by Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.). She will soon introduce legislation similar to HR 1195, which the House passed.

“This bill will provide long overdue protections and safety standards,” she said. It will ensure that workplaces adopt proven protection techniques, such as those in OSHA’s 2015 guideline for preventing health care workplace violence. The American Hospital Association opposed the House bill on the grounds that hospitals have already implemented policies and programs specifically tailored to address workplace violence, so the OSHA standards required by the bill are not warranted.

Another speaker at the press conference, Aisha Terry, MD, MPH, FACEP, an emergency physician for George Washington University and Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., and current vice president of ACEP, described an incident that occurred when she was at work. A patient punched the nurse caring for him in the face, knocking her unconscious to the floor. “I’ll never forget that sound,” Dr. Terry said. “To this day, it has impacted her career. She hasn’t known what to do.”

Many people don’t realize how bad workplace violence really is, Dr. Terry added. “You assume you can serve as the safety net of this country, taking care of patients in the context of the pandemic, and feel safe – and not have to worry about your own safety. It’s past due that we put an end to this.”
 

Biggest win

Mr. Haines called the workplace violence bill a game changer for ED professionals, now and into the future. “We’re not going to totally eliminate violence in the emergency department. That is part of our business. But this legislation will support us and give a safer environment for us to do the work we love,” he said.

“The biggest win for this legislation is that it will create a supportive, nonretaliatory environment. It will give us as nurses a structured way to report things.” And, when these incidents do get reported, staff will get the help they need, Mr. Haines said. “The legislation will help show the importance of implementing systems and processes in emergency settings to address the risks and hazards that makes us all vulnerable to violence.”

No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Legislation nearing passage in Colorado would lift a veil of secrecy around sperm donation and grant other protections to people conceived with donated gametes.

The bipartisan bill, which was passed by the state’s house of representatives May 10 after previous approval by the senate, would enable offspring to learn the identity of a sperm or egg donor when they turn 18 and receive a donor’s medical information prior to that. Fertility clinics would be required to update donors’ contact information and medical records every 3 years.

In addition, clinics would have to make “good-faith efforts” to track births to ensure that no more than 25 families conceive babies from a single donor’s sperm. Egg donors could donate up to six times, based on medical risk.

The bill would establish a minimum donor age of 21 years and require dissemination of educational materials to donors and prospective parents about the psychological needs of donor-conceived children.

The provisions would take effect with donations collected on or after Jan. 1, 2025. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $20,000 per day.

Advocates point out that in addition to the benefits of knowing one’s genetic identity, the anonymity of sperm donors has been scuttled by the availability of commercial genetic testing. (Egg donation has tended to be more open.)

Some sperm banks already have adopted systems in which adult offspring can learn the identity of donors if both parties agree. However, a survey by the United States Donor Conceived Council, an advocacy group, found “significant problems” with some of those policies, such as requirements that donor-conceived offspring sign nondisclosure agreements or sperm banks refusing to release information if a donor-conceived person’s parents never registered the child’s birth with the bank.

Some measures in the bill reflect the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, although not all companies follow them, according to the council’s survey. For example, no sperm bank adheres to a recommendation that donors be at least 21 years old.

“The industry is shifting very fast, but there are definitely banks that I think need an extra push to protect the rights of the people that they’re producing,” Tiffany Gardner, a spokesperson for the council, told this news organization.

At a senate hearing, fertility care providers voiced concerns that the legislation would impose undue burdens on the industry and discourage men from donating sperm. In response, sponsors made several amendments, including capping a licensing fee for clinics and banks at $500 and increasing the family limit for each donor, which was originally set at 10.

Still, some in the industry said the bill, introduced April 22, was too rushed to receive adequate scrutiny. While everyone agreed that limiting the number of a person’s half siblings is a good thing, for example, the best way to go about it is unclear, they said.

“There wasn’t enough time to really get experts together to provide more formal, thoughtful, evidence-based feedback on what should be on this bill,” said Cassandra Roeca, MD, of Shady Grove Fertility, which has clinics in Denver and Colorado Springs. Dr. Roeca testified on behalf of Colorado Fertility Advocates, a nonprofit that promotes access to fertility care.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) is expected to sign the bill, an aide to one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Kerry Tipper (D-Lakewood), said in an interview.

Colorado is not the only state considering transparency for donor-conceived offspring. A New York bill would require fertility clinics to verify the medical, educational, and criminal histories of donors and allow donor-conceived people access to the information.

The New York measure is championed by the family of Steven Gunner, a 27-year-old man who died in May 2020 of an opioid overdose. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Gunner’s family had been unaware of his biological father’s history of psychiatric problems.

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

Legislation nearing passage in Colorado would lift a veil of secrecy around sperm donation and grant other protections to people conceived with donated gametes.

The bipartisan bill, which was passed by the state’s house of representatives May 10 after previous approval by the senate, would enable offspring to learn the identity of a sperm or egg donor when they turn 18 and receive a donor’s medical information prior to that. Fertility clinics would be required to update donors’ contact information and medical records every 3 years.

In addition, clinics would have to make “good-faith efforts” to track births to ensure that no more than 25 families conceive babies from a single donor’s sperm. Egg donors could donate up to six times, based on medical risk.

The bill would establish a minimum donor age of 21 years and require dissemination of educational materials to donors and prospective parents about the psychological needs of donor-conceived children.

The provisions would take effect with donations collected on or after Jan. 1, 2025. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $20,000 per day.

Advocates point out that in addition to the benefits of knowing one’s genetic identity, the anonymity of sperm donors has been scuttled by the availability of commercial genetic testing. (Egg donation has tended to be more open.)

Some sperm banks already have adopted systems in which adult offspring can learn the identity of donors if both parties agree. However, a survey by the United States Donor Conceived Council, an advocacy group, found “significant problems” with some of those policies, such as requirements that donor-conceived offspring sign nondisclosure agreements or sperm banks refusing to release information if a donor-conceived person’s parents never registered the child’s birth with the bank.

Some measures in the bill reflect the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, although not all companies follow them, according to the council’s survey. For example, no sperm bank adheres to a recommendation that donors be at least 21 years old.

“The industry is shifting very fast, but there are definitely banks that I think need an extra push to protect the rights of the people that they’re producing,” Tiffany Gardner, a spokesperson for the council, told this news organization.

At a senate hearing, fertility care providers voiced concerns that the legislation would impose undue burdens on the industry and discourage men from donating sperm. In response, sponsors made several amendments, including capping a licensing fee for clinics and banks at $500 and increasing the family limit for each donor, which was originally set at 10.

Still, some in the industry said the bill, introduced April 22, was too rushed to receive adequate scrutiny. While everyone agreed that limiting the number of a person’s half siblings is a good thing, for example, the best way to go about it is unclear, they said.

“There wasn’t enough time to really get experts together to provide more formal, thoughtful, evidence-based feedback on what should be on this bill,” said Cassandra Roeca, MD, of Shady Grove Fertility, which has clinics in Denver and Colorado Springs. Dr. Roeca testified on behalf of Colorado Fertility Advocates, a nonprofit that promotes access to fertility care.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) is expected to sign the bill, an aide to one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Kerry Tipper (D-Lakewood), said in an interview.

Colorado is not the only state considering transparency for donor-conceived offspring. A New York bill would require fertility clinics to verify the medical, educational, and criminal histories of donors and allow donor-conceived people access to the information.

The New York measure is championed by the family of Steven Gunner, a 27-year-old man who died in May 2020 of an opioid overdose. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Gunner’s family had been unaware of his biological father’s history of psychiatric problems.

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

Legislation nearing passage in Colorado would lift a veil of secrecy around sperm donation and grant other protections to people conceived with donated gametes.

The bipartisan bill, which was passed by the state’s house of representatives May 10 after previous approval by the senate, would enable offspring to learn the identity of a sperm or egg donor when they turn 18 and receive a donor’s medical information prior to that. Fertility clinics would be required to update donors’ contact information and medical records every 3 years.

In addition, clinics would have to make “good-faith efforts” to track births to ensure that no more than 25 families conceive babies from a single donor’s sperm. Egg donors could donate up to six times, based on medical risk.

The bill would establish a minimum donor age of 21 years and require dissemination of educational materials to donors and prospective parents about the psychological needs of donor-conceived children.

The provisions would take effect with donations collected on or after Jan. 1, 2025. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $20,000 per day.

Advocates point out that in addition to the benefits of knowing one’s genetic identity, the anonymity of sperm donors has been scuttled by the availability of commercial genetic testing. (Egg donation has tended to be more open.)

Some sperm banks already have adopted systems in which adult offspring can learn the identity of donors if both parties agree. However, a survey by the United States Donor Conceived Council, an advocacy group, found “significant problems” with some of those policies, such as requirements that donor-conceived offspring sign nondisclosure agreements or sperm banks refusing to release information if a donor-conceived person’s parents never registered the child’s birth with the bank.

Some measures in the bill reflect the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, although not all companies follow them, according to the council’s survey. For example, no sperm bank adheres to a recommendation that donors be at least 21 years old.

“The industry is shifting very fast, but there are definitely banks that I think need an extra push to protect the rights of the people that they’re producing,” Tiffany Gardner, a spokesperson for the council, told this news organization.

At a senate hearing, fertility care providers voiced concerns that the legislation would impose undue burdens on the industry and discourage men from donating sperm. In response, sponsors made several amendments, including capping a licensing fee for clinics and banks at $500 and increasing the family limit for each donor, which was originally set at 10.

Still, some in the industry said the bill, introduced April 22, was too rushed to receive adequate scrutiny. While everyone agreed that limiting the number of a person’s half siblings is a good thing, for example, the best way to go about it is unclear, they said.

“There wasn’t enough time to really get experts together to provide more formal, thoughtful, evidence-based feedback on what should be on this bill,” said Cassandra Roeca, MD, of Shady Grove Fertility, which has clinics in Denver and Colorado Springs. Dr. Roeca testified on behalf of Colorado Fertility Advocates, a nonprofit that promotes access to fertility care.

Gov. Jared Polis (D) is expected to sign the bill, an aide to one of the co-sponsors, Rep. Kerry Tipper (D-Lakewood), said in an interview.

Colorado is not the only state considering transparency for donor-conceived offspring. A New York bill would require fertility clinics to verify the medical, educational, and criminal histories of donors and allow donor-conceived people access to the information.

The New York measure is championed by the family of Steven Gunner, a 27-year-old man who died in May 2020 of an opioid overdose. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Gunner’s family had been unaware of his biological father’s history of psychiatric problems.

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

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

Madhu Manivannan, a third-year medical student at Emory University, Atlanta, is on the vanguard of a new approach to clinical education. Ms. Manivannan, copresident of Emory Medical Students for Climate Action, was in the first class of Emory’s medical students to experience the birth of a refined curriculum – lobbied for and partially created by students themselves. The new course of study addresses the myriad ways climate affects health: from air pollution and its effects on the lungs and cardiovascular system to heat-related kidney disease.

“We have known that climate has affected health for decades,” Ms. Manivannan said in a recent interview. “The narrative used to be that icebergs were melting and in 2050 polar bears would be extinct. The piece that’s different now is people are linking climate to increases in asthma and various diseases. We have a way to directly communicate that it’s not a far-off thing. It’s happening to your friends and family right now.”

Hospitals, medical schools, and public health programs are stepping up to educate the next generation of doctors as well as veteran medical workers on one of the most widespread, insidious health threats of our time – climate change – and specific ways it could affect their patients.

Although climate change may seem to many Americans like a distant threat, Marilyn Howarth, MD, a pediatrician in Philadelphia, is trying to make sure physicians are better prepared to treat a growing number of health problems associated with global warming.

“There isn’t a lot of education for pediatricians and internists on environmental health issues. It has not been a standard part of education in medical school or residency training,” Dr. Howarth, deputy director of the new Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, said. “With increasing attention on our climate, we really recognize there’s a real gap in physician knowledge, both in pediatric and adult care.”

Scientists have found that climate change can alter just about every system within the human body. Studies show that more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, thunderstorms, and floods, can worsen asthma and produce more pollen and mold, triggering debilitating respiratory problems.

According to the American Lung Association, ultrafine particles of air pollution can be inhaled and then travel throughout the bloodstream, wreaking havoc on organs and increasing risk of heart attack and stroke. Various types of air pollution also cause changes to the climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere, which leads to problems such as rising sea levels and extreme weather. Plus, in a new study published in Nature, scientists warn that warming climates are forcing animals to migrate to different areas, raising the risk that new infectious diseases will hop from animals – such as bats – to humans, a process called “zoonotic spillover” that many researchers believe is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

The Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health

One of the latest initiatives aimed at disseminating information about children’s health to health care providers is the Philadelphia Regional Center for Children’s Environmental Health, part of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine. CHOP and Penn Medicine are jointly funding this center’s work, which will include educating health care providers on how to better screen for climate-caused health risks and treat related conditions, such as lead poisoning and asthma.

Outreach will focus on providers who treat patients with illnesses that researchers have linked to climate change, Dr. Howarth said. The center will offer clinicians access to seminars and webinars, along with online resources to help doctors treat environmental illnesses. For example, doctors at CHOP’s Poison Control Center are developing a toolkit for physicians to treat patients with elevated levels of lead in the blood. Scientists have linked extreme weather events related to climate change to flooding that pushes metals away from river banks where they were previously contained, allowing them to more easily contaminate homes, soils, and yards.

The initiative builds on CHOP’s Community Asthma Prevention Program (CAPP), which was launched in 1997 by Tyra Bryant-Stephens, MD, its current medical director. CAPP deploys community health workers into homes armed with supplies and tips for managing asthma. The new center will use similar tactics to provide education and resources to patients. The goal is to reach as many at-risk local children as possible.
 

Future generation of doctors fuel growth in climate change education

Lisa Doggett, MD, cofounder and president of the board of directors of Texas Physicians for Social Responsibility, announced in March that the University of Texas at Austin, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas have all decided to begin offering a course on environmental threats. Emory’s new curriculum has become more comprehensive every year since its start – thanks in part to the input of students like Ms. Manivannan. Faculty members tasked her with approving the new additions to the curriculum on how climate affects health, which in 2019 had consisted of a few slides about issues such as extreme heat exposure and air pollution and their effects on childbirth outcomes.

Material on climate change has now been woven into 13 courses. It is discussed at length in relation to pulmonology, cardiology, and gastropulmonology, for example, said Rebecca Philipsborn, MD, MPA, FAAP, faculty lead for the environmental and health curriculum at Emory.

The curriculum has only been incorporated into Emory’s program for the past 2 years. Dr. Philipsborn said the school plans to expand it to the clinical years to help trainees learn to treat conditions such as pediatric asthma.

“In the past few years, there has been so much momentum, and part of that is a testament to already seeing effects of climate change and how they affect delivery of health care,” she said.

At least one medical journal has recently ramped up its efforts to educate physicians on the links between health issues and climate change. Editors of Family Practice, from Oxford University Press, have announced that they plan to publish a special Climate Crisis and Primary Health Care issue in September.

Of course, not all climate initiatives in medicine are new. A select few have existed for decades.

But only now are physicians widely seeing the links between health and environment, according to Aaron Bernstein, MD, MPH, interim director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment (C-CHANGE) at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

C-CHANGE, founded in 1996, was the first center in the world to focus on the health effects of environmental change.

“It’s taken 20 years, but what we’re seeing, I think, is the fruits of education,” Dr. Bernstein said. “There’s clearly a wave building here, and I think it really started with education and people younger than the people in charge calling them into account.”

Like the Philadelphia center, Harvard’s program conducts research on climate and health and educates people from high schoolers to health care veterans. Dr. Bernstein helps lead Climate MD, a program that aims to prepare health care workers for climate crises. The Climate MD team has published several articles in peer-reviewed journals on how to better treat patients struggling with environmental health problems. For example, an article on mapping patients in hurricane zones helped shed light on how systems can identify climate-vulnerable patients using public data.

They also developed a tool to help pediatricians provide “climate-informed primary care” – guidance on how to assess whether children are at risk of any harmful environmental exposures, a feature that is not part of standard pediatric visits.

Like the other programs, Climate MD uses community outreach to treat as many local patients as possible. Staff work with providers at more than 100 health clinics, particularly in areas where climate change disproportionately affects residents.

The next major step is to bring some of this into clinical practice, Dr. Bernstein said. In February 2020, C-CHANGE held its first symposium to address that issue.

“The key is to understand climate issues from a provider’s perspective,” he said. “Then those issues can really be brought to the bedside.”

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

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

A recent article on Medscape entitled “Online Reviews Most Important Factor in Choosing a Doctor: Survey” really got me thinking about my online presence. According to the results of a new Press Ganey survey, online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor for consumers when choosing a new health care provider, even more so than the recommendation of another doctor. Almost 85% of the survey respondents said they wouldn’t make an appointment with a referred provider if they had a rating of less than 4 stars.

To be honest, I’ve rarely thought about my ratings or online reviews, and I almost never enter my own name into a web browser to see what might emerge. I don’t use most popular social media apps, I don’t have a professional website, and I was completely late in joining LinkedIn. After considering the Press Ganey survey results, though, I’m wondering how many patients (or potential patients) have found me online. And what exactly did they see?

So, I just searched online for my ratings and reviews. There weren’t many direct hits (although I’m not sure if that is a good thing or not). One of the results listed me as a “Fibromyalgia Doctor” at www.lymeforums.org. To be clear, I’m a locum tenens infectious diseases provider with a focus on inpatient consultations and teaching. I couldn’t find any reviews for myself on WebMD, but I had one rating on the Healthgrades website – I was pleased to see someone gave me 5 stars (though there weren’t any comments) until I realized the site listed my address at an ob.gyn. office; I’m not even sure if that rating was meant for me.

Use of the Internet to assess my qualities as a physician is clearly limited, and much of the online information about my specialty and practice sites is completely inaccurate. Yet, according to the Press Ganey survey, the average consumer uses three different websites and reads more than five online reviews before making a provider decision. Once they’ve seen a provider, though, patients rank practice customer service and communication as more important than “bedside manner” when considering a 5-star review. So, it appears that many physician reviews and ratings probably reflect the performance of the office staff, not the provider.

Given the few hits that I encountered when searching my own name, I’m not convinced I need to do anything differently about my online presence; essentially, I don’t really have one. However, there were certainly a lot of other physicians with the same last name as mine who did have impressive numbers of reviews and ratings. One doctor of cosmetic surgery had more than 200 reviews on multiple sites; almost all were positive, but a few patients rated him at 1 or 2 (out of 5) stars, suggesting that patients should find a new surgeon. What does one do about those outliers?

Medicine is indeed a business and patients behave as consumers when searching the web for a health care provider. Another survey has suggested that just one negative review may cause a business to risk losing 22% of its customers, and that multiple bad ratings are even worse – nearly 60% of customers will avoid a business with three or more negative online reviews.

A few years ago, The Washington Post published an article about doctors who were fighting back against bad reviews. Unfortunately, while trying to directly combat inaccuracies, some providers divulged sensitive patient information and suffered the consequences of HIPAA violations. Many legal experts suggest that, in most cases, physicians should restrain from responding publicly to negative online reviews, however tempting it may be to react.

If a negative review is attributed to a specific patient, some lawyers recommend contacting them privately by phone to address their concerns; this may clear the air enough to result in a withdrawal of the negative review or rating. Flagging and reporting fake or unsubstantiated negative reviews (or reviews that violate the Terms of Service of a specific platform) can be done. Consultation with an Internet defamation attorney might be helpful in some circumstances, though hopefully, legal action such as a lawsuit or a cease-and-desist letter can be avoided.

For physicians who do maintain an online presence, engaging with an online reputation management service can help suppress fake or negative reviews while offering strategies for building a better reputation. As for me, I think that I’m grateful my name hasn’t attracted a lot of attention at physician ranking and review sites. I guess we’ll see if it stays that way.

Dr. Devlin is president of Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent article on Medscape entitled “Online Reviews Most Important Factor in Choosing a Doctor: Survey” really got me thinking about my online presence. According to the results of a new Press Ganey survey, online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor for consumers when choosing a new health care provider, even more so than the recommendation of another doctor. Almost 85% of the survey respondents said they wouldn’t make an appointment with a referred provider if they had a rating of less than 4 stars.

To be honest, I’ve rarely thought about my ratings or online reviews, and I almost never enter my own name into a web browser to see what might emerge. I don’t use most popular social media apps, I don’t have a professional website, and I was completely late in joining LinkedIn. After considering the Press Ganey survey results, though, I’m wondering how many patients (or potential patients) have found me online. And what exactly did they see?

So, I just searched online for my ratings and reviews. There weren’t many direct hits (although I’m not sure if that is a good thing or not). One of the results listed me as a “Fibromyalgia Doctor” at www.lymeforums.org. To be clear, I’m a locum tenens infectious diseases provider with a focus on inpatient consultations and teaching. I couldn’t find any reviews for myself on WebMD, but I had one rating on the Healthgrades website – I was pleased to see someone gave me 5 stars (though there weren’t any comments) until I realized the site listed my address at an ob.gyn. office; I’m not even sure if that rating was meant for me.

Use of the Internet to assess my qualities as a physician is clearly limited, and much of the online information about my specialty and practice sites is completely inaccurate. Yet, according to the Press Ganey survey, the average consumer uses three different websites and reads more than five online reviews before making a provider decision. Once they’ve seen a provider, though, patients rank practice customer service and communication as more important than “bedside manner” when considering a 5-star review. So, it appears that many physician reviews and ratings probably reflect the performance of the office staff, not the provider.

Given the few hits that I encountered when searching my own name, I’m not convinced I need to do anything differently about my online presence; essentially, I don’t really have one. However, there were certainly a lot of other physicians with the same last name as mine who did have impressive numbers of reviews and ratings. One doctor of cosmetic surgery had more than 200 reviews on multiple sites; almost all were positive, but a few patients rated him at 1 or 2 (out of 5) stars, suggesting that patients should find a new surgeon. What does one do about those outliers?

Medicine is indeed a business and patients behave as consumers when searching the web for a health care provider. Another survey has suggested that just one negative review may cause a business to risk losing 22% of its customers, and that multiple bad ratings are even worse – nearly 60% of customers will avoid a business with three or more negative online reviews.

A few years ago, The Washington Post published an article about doctors who were fighting back against bad reviews. Unfortunately, while trying to directly combat inaccuracies, some providers divulged sensitive patient information and suffered the consequences of HIPAA violations. Many legal experts suggest that, in most cases, physicians should restrain from responding publicly to negative online reviews, however tempting it may be to react.

If a negative review is attributed to a specific patient, some lawyers recommend contacting them privately by phone to address their concerns; this may clear the air enough to result in a withdrawal of the negative review or rating. Flagging and reporting fake or unsubstantiated negative reviews (or reviews that violate the Terms of Service of a specific platform) can be done. Consultation with an Internet defamation attorney might be helpful in some circumstances, though hopefully, legal action such as a lawsuit or a cease-and-desist letter can be avoided.

For physicians who do maintain an online presence, engaging with an online reputation management service can help suppress fake or negative reviews while offering strategies for building a better reputation. As for me, I think that I’m grateful my name hasn’t attracted a lot of attention at physician ranking and review sites. I guess we’ll see if it stays that way.

Dr. Devlin is president of Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent article on Medscape entitled “Online Reviews Most Important Factor in Choosing a Doctor: Survey” really got me thinking about my online presence. According to the results of a new Press Ganey survey, online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor for consumers when choosing a new health care provider, even more so than the recommendation of another doctor. Almost 85% of the survey respondents said they wouldn’t make an appointment with a referred provider if they had a rating of less than 4 stars.

To be honest, I’ve rarely thought about my ratings or online reviews, and I almost never enter my own name into a web browser to see what might emerge. I don’t use most popular social media apps, I don’t have a professional website, and I was completely late in joining LinkedIn. After considering the Press Ganey survey results, though, I’m wondering how many patients (or potential patients) have found me online. And what exactly did they see?

So, I just searched online for my ratings and reviews. There weren’t many direct hits (although I’m not sure if that is a good thing or not). One of the results listed me as a “Fibromyalgia Doctor” at www.lymeforums.org. To be clear, I’m a locum tenens infectious diseases provider with a focus on inpatient consultations and teaching. I couldn’t find any reviews for myself on WebMD, but I had one rating on the Healthgrades website – I was pleased to see someone gave me 5 stars (though there weren’t any comments) until I realized the site listed my address at an ob.gyn. office; I’m not even sure if that rating was meant for me.

Use of the Internet to assess my qualities as a physician is clearly limited, and much of the online information about my specialty and practice sites is completely inaccurate. Yet, according to the Press Ganey survey, the average consumer uses three different websites and reads more than five online reviews before making a provider decision. Once they’ve seen a provider, though, patients rank practice customer service and communication as more important than “bedside manner” when considering a 5-star review. So, it appears that many physician reviews and ratings probably reflect the performance of the office staff, not the provider.

Given the few hits that I encountered when searching my own name, I’m not convinced I need to do anything differently about my online presence; essentially, I don’t really have one. However, there were certainly a lot of other physicians with the same last name as mine who did have impressive numbers of reviews and ratings. One doctor of cosmetic surgery had more than 200 reviews on multiple sites; almost all were positive, but a few patients rated him at 1 or 2 (out of 5) stars, suggesting that patients should find a new surgeon. What does one do about those outliers?

Medicine is indeed a business and patients behave as consumers when searching the web for a health care provider. Another survey has suggested that just one negative review may cause a business to risk losing 22% of its customers, and that multiple bad ratings are even worse – nearly 60% of customers will avoid a business with three or more negative online reviews.

A few years ago, The Washington Post published an article about doctors who were fighting back against bad reviews. Unfortunately, while trying to directly combat inaccuracies, some providers divulged sensitive patient information and suffered the consequences of HIPAA violations. Many legal experts suggest that, in most cases, physicians should restrain from responding publicly to negative online reviews, however tempting it may be to react.

If a negative review is attributed to a specific patient, some lawyers recommend contacting them privately by phone to address their concerns; this may clear the air enough to result in a withdrawal of the negative review or rating. Flagging and reporting fake or unsubstantiated negative reviews (or reviews that violate the Terms of Service of a specific platform) can be done. Consultation with an Internet defamation attorney might be helpful in some circumstances, though hopefully, legal action such as a lawsuit or a cease-and-desist letter can be avoided.

For physicians who do maintain an online presence, engaging with an online reputation management service can help suppress fake or negative reviews while offering strategies for building a better reputation. As for me, I think that I’m grateful my name hasn’t attracted a lot of attention at physician ranking and review sites. I guess we’ll see if it stays that way.

Dr. Devlin is president of Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

BOSTON – As a former active-duty cavalry officer in the U.S. Army who served a 15-month tour in Iraq in 2003, Adam C. Byrd, MD, isn’t easily rattled.

On any given day, as the only dermatologist in his hometown of Louisville, Miss., which has a population of about 6,500, he sees 35-40 patients who present with conditions ranging from an infantile hemangioma to dermatomyositis and porphyria cutanea tarda. Being the go-to specialist for hundreds of miles with no on-site lab and no immediate personal access to Mohs surgeons and other subspecialists might unnerve some dermatologists, but not him.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

“They’re a text message away, but they’re not in my office,” he said during a session on rural dermatology at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “I don’t have a mid-level practitioner, either. It’s just me and the residents, so it can be somewhat isolating. But in a rural area, you’re doing your patients a disservice if you can’t handle broad-spectrum medical dermatology. I consider myself a family dermatologist; I do a little bit of everything.” This includes prescribing treatments ranging from methotrexate for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, eczema, and other conditions; cyclosporine and azathioprine for pediatric eczema; propranolol for infantile hemangiomas; to IV infusions for dermatomyositis; phlebotomy for porphyria cutanea tarda; and biologics.

With no on-site pathology lab, Dr. Byrd sends specimens twice a week to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson via FedEx to be read. “I have to wait 3 days for results instead of 2,” he said. At the end of each workday, he personally carries microbiology samples to Winston Medical Center in Louisville – the area’s only hospital and where he was born – for processing.

After completing a 5-year integrated internal medicine-dermatology residency at the University of Minnesota in 2016, Dr. Byrd worked with Robert T. Brodell, MD, who chairs the department of dermatology at UMMC, and other university officials to open a satellite clinic in Louisville, where he provides full-spectrum skin care for Northern Mississippians. The clinic, located about 95 miles from UMMC’s “mothership” in Jackson, has become a vital training ground for the university, which created the only rural-specific dermatology residency of the 142 accredited dermatology programs in the United States. Of the three to four residents accepted per year, one is a rural track resident who spends 3-month–long rotations at rural clinic sites such as Dr. Byrd’s during each of the 3 years of general dermatology training, and the remaining 9 months of each year alongside their non–rural track coresidents.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

One of the program’s rural track residents, Joshua R. Ortego, MD, worked in Dr. Byrd’s clinic during PGY-2. “It’s unique for one attending and one resident to work together for 3 months straight,” said Dr. Ortego, who grew up in Bay St. Louis on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, which has a population of about 9,200. “Dr. Byrd learns our weaknesses and knows our strengths and areas for improvement. You get close. And there’s continuity; you see some patients back. With all the shuffling in the traditional dermatology residency model, sometimes you’re not seeing patients for follow-up appointments. But here you do.”

Rural dermatology track residents who rotate through Dr. Byrd’s Louisville clinic spend each Monday at the main campus in Jackson for a continuity clinic and didactics with non–rural track residents, “which allows for collegiality,” Dr. Ortego said. “My coresidents are like family; it would be hard to spend 3 months or even a year away from family like that.” The department foots the cost of lodging in a Louisville hotel 4 nights per week during these 3 months of training.

Dr. Ortego said that he performed a far greater number of procedures during PGY-2, compared with the averages performed in UMMC’s general dermatology rotation: 75 excisions (vs. 17), 71 repairs (vs. 15), and 23 excisions on the face or scalp (vs. none). He also cared for patients who presented with advanced disease because of access issues, and others with rare conditions. For example, in one afternoon clinic he and Dr. Byrd saw two patients with porphyria cutanea tarda, and one case each of dermatomyositis, bullous pemphigoid, and pyoderma gangrenosum. “We have an autoimmune blistering disease clinic in Jackson, but patients don’t want to drive there,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Adam Byrd

Then there are the perks that come with practicing in a rural area, including ready access to hiking, fishing, hunting, and spending time with family and friends. “Rural residents should be comfortable with the lifestyle,” he said. “Some cities don’t have the same amenities as San Francisco or Boston, but not everyone requires that. They just love where they’re from.”

The residency’s structure is designed to address the dire shortage of rural-based dermatologists in the United States. A study published in 2018 found that the difference in dermatologist density between metropolitan and rural counties in the United States increased from 3.41 per 100,000 people (3.47 vs. 0.065 per 100,000 people) in 1995 to 4.03 per 100, 000 people (4.11 vs. 0.085 per 100,000 people in 2013; P = .053). That’s about 40 times the number of dermatologists in metro areas, compared with rural areas.

Residents enrolled in UMMC’s rural dermatology track are expected to serve at least 3 years at a rural location upon graduation at a site mutually agreed upon by the resident and the UMMC. Dr. Ortego plans to practice in Bay St. Louis after completing his residency. “The idea is that you’re happy, that you’re in your hometown,” he said.

According to Dr. Byrd, the 3-year commitment brings job security to rural track residents in their preferred location while meeting the demands of an underserved population. “We are still tweaking this,” he said of the residency track, which includes plans to establish more satellite clinics in other areas of rural Mississippi. “Our department chair does not have 100% control over hiring and office expansion. We are subject to the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning, which is a branch of the state government. This has to be addressed at the council of chairs and university chancellor level and even state government. It can be done, but you really must be dedicated.”

Meanwhile, the effect that dermatologists like Dr. Byrd have on citizens of his area of rural Mississippi is palpable. Many refuse to travel outside of Louisville city limits to see a specialist, so when surgery for a suspicious lesion is indicated, they tell him, “You’re going to do it, or it’s not going to get done,” said Dr. Byrd, who continues to serve in the Mississippi Army National Guard as a field surgeon. “I don’t say ‘no’ a whole lot.” He refers patients to Mohs micrographic surgery colleagues in Jackson daily and is transparent with patients who hesitate to elect Mohs surgery. “I’ll say, ‘I can do the job, but there’s a higher risk of positive margins, and a Mohs surgeon could do a much better job.’”

He acknowledged that rural dermatology “isn’t for everyone. It requires a physician that has a good training foundation in medical and surgical dermatology, someone with a ‘can do’ attitude and a healthy level of confidence. I try to do the best for my patients. It’s endearing when they trust you.”

Mary Logue, MD, who practices dermatology in Minot, N.D., finds the structure of UMMC’s rural dermatology track inspiring. Upon completing her dermatology residency at the University of New Mexico, where she remains on the volunteer faculty, she had hoped to return to serve the community of Gallup, N.M., and help bridge the gap in dermatology health care access for residents of rural New Mexico, especially those on Native American reservations. That opportunity never transpired, but Dr. Logue was able to pursue her passion for rural medicine in North Dakota.

“It is my hope that more programs will implement a similar structure to UMMC’s rural dermatology track and get more dermatologists practicing in rural areas,” Dr. Logue told this news organization. “They have developed a very practical and financially sustainable model, which I think every state could benefit from.”

She added that the UMMC “has found a way to bring dermatology to disadvantaged rural communities while also addressing the problem of underrepresented minorities in medicine. Medical students of color and medical students from rural communities are the least represented groups in dermatology, but the most likely to return to their communities to practice. Every day I see patients with adverse dermatologic outcomes as a direct result of lack of access to a dermatologist. This is happening across the country, which is why the efforts of UMMC Dermatology and their department chair, Dr. Brodell, are so important.”

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.

A new study of hospitals in New York City suggests ways to reduce severe maternal morbidity (SMM). The researchers interviewed health care professionals in four institutions with low performance and four with high performance, and identified various themes associated with good performance.

“Our results raise the hypothesis that hospital learning collaboratives focused on optimizing organizational practices and policies, increasing clinician and staff awareness and education on maternal health disparities, and addressing structural racism may be important tools for improving equity in maternal outcomes,” the authors wrote in the study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers conducted 50 semistructured interviews with health care professionals at lower-performing and higher-performing New York City hospitals, which were selected based on risk-adjusted morbidity metrics. The interviews explored various topics, including structural characteristics like staffing, organizational characteristics like culture and communication, labor and delivery practices such as teamwork and use of evidence-based practices, and racial and ethnic disparities.

The analysis revealed six broad areas that were stronger in high-performing hospitals: day-to-day involvement of leadership in quality activities, an emphasis on standards and standardized care, good communication and teamwork between nurses and physicians, good staffing and supervision among physicians and nurses, sharing of performance data with health care workers, and acknowledgment of the existence of racial and ethnic disparities and that bias can cause treatment differences.

“I think this qualitative approach is an important lens to pair with the quantitative approach. With such variability in severe maternal morbidity between hospitals in New York, it is not enough to just look at the quantitative data. To understand how to improve you must examine structures and processes. The structures, which are the physical and organizational characteristics in health care, and the process, which is how health care is delivered,” Veronica Gillispie-Bell, MD, wrote in a comment. Dr. Gillispie-Bell is medical director at Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative and the Pregnancy-Associated Mortality Review for the Louisiana Department of Health.

“We know that high reliability organizations are those who are preoccupied with quality and safety. That means accountability from leadership (structure) and stability in standardization of care (processes). However, none of this matters if you do not have a culture that promotes safety. Based on the key findings of the high-performing hospitals, there was a culture that promoted safety and quality evidenced in the nurse-physician communication and the transparency around data through a lens of equity,” wrote Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

She noted that the study should encourage low-performing hospitals, since it illustrates avenues for improvement. Her personal experience reflects that, though she said that hospitals need help. The Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative addressed severe maternal morbidity at birthing centers by implementing evidence-based best practices for management of hypertension and hemorrhage along with health equity measures. The team conducted coaching calls, in-person learning sessions, and in-person visits through a “Listening Tour.”

The result was a 35% reduction in hemorrhage overall and a reduction of 49% in hemorrhage in Black women, as well as hypertension by 12% overall between August 2018 and May 2020. Not all the news was good, as Black women still had an increase in severe maternal morbidity, possibly because of the COVID epidemic, since it is a risk factor for hypertension during pregnancy and infection rates are higher among Black individuals. “We need support for state based perinatal quality collaboratives to do this work and we need accountability as we are now seeing from metrics being implemented by [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. Hospitals need to stratify their data by race and ethnicity to see where there are disparities in their outcomes,” said Dr. Gillispie-Bell.

The improvements are needed, given that the United States has the highest rates of maternal mortality and morbidity among developed countries, “most of which is preventable, and we have significant inequities by race and ethnicity,” said Laurie Zephyrin, MD, vice president for advancing health equity at the Commonwealth Fund. The question becomes how to effect change, and “there’s a lot happening in the policy space. Some of this policy change is directed at expanding insurance coverage, including more opportunities, including funding for community health workers and doulas, and thinking about how to incorporate midwives. There’s also work around how do we actually improve the care delivered by our health system.” Dr. Zephyrin added that the Department of Health & Human Services has contracted with the health improvement company Premier to use data and best-practices to improve maternal health.

The new work has the potential to be complementary to such approaches. “It provides some structure around how to approach some of the solutions, none of which I think is rocket science. It’s just something that needs to be focused on more intentionally,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

For example, the report found that high-performing hospitals had leaders who collaborated with frontline clinicians to share performance data, and this occurred in person, at departmental quality meetings, and during grand rounds. In contrast, staff in low-performing hospitals did not mention data feedback and some said that their institution made little effort to communicate performance metrics to frontline staff.

“One of the key lessons from the pandemic is that we need to have better data, and we need to have data around race and ethnicity to be able to understand the impact on marginalized communities. This study highlights that there’s more to be done around data to ensure that we can truly move the needle on advancing health equity,” said Dr. Zephyrin.

The researchers also found that clinicians in low-performing institutions did not acknowledge the presence of structural racism or differences in care associated with race or ethnicity. When they acknowledge differences in care, they attributed them to factors outside of the hospital’s control, such as patients not seeking out health care or not maintaining a healthy weight. Clinicians at high-performing hospitals were more likely to explicitly mention racism and bias and acknowledged that these factors could contribute to differences in care.

Dr. Gillispie-Bell and Dr. Zephyrin have no relevant financial disclosures.