Business of Medicine

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

Holiday travel season is right around the corner, but coronavirus cases have already started to climb. But a new automated texting system could relieve pressure on emergency departments and reduce mortality rates if there were an uptick in COVID-19 this winter.

COVID Watch, a text message–based remote monitoring program developed by the University of Pennsylvania Health System, was associated with a 68% reduction in the risk of death, compared with those who received usual care. This was the main finding of a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The investigators also determined that patients who enrolled in the program were more likely to seek care in the ED and when they did, they came in on average 2 days sooner than those who received usual care.

“When our clinical team designed COVID Watch the goal was to facilitate hospital care for patients who require it, while supporting access to care for patients who can safely remain at home,” study author M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, an assistant professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Researchers had initially hoped COVID Watch would relieve pressure on EDs, Dr. Delgado said.
 

Significantly lower mortality seen among COVID Watch group

For the study, Dr. Delgado and colleagues enrolled 3,488 patients in COVID Watch and 4,377 in the usual care group to compare outcomes at 30 and 60 days.

“We didn’t include patients who were diagnosed with COVID in the ER or hospital, so this is a lower-risk cohort of patients who test positive in outpatient settings,” Dr. Delgado noted. “Outpatients who received usual care and COVID Watch both had relatively low mortality, but it was significantly lower in those who were in COVID Watch.”

The researchers found that 3 patients in the COVID Watch group died within 30 days of their enrollment, compared with 12 in the control group. At 60 days after enrollment, 5 people within COVID Watch died, compared with 16 not using the system. More than one-third of the deaths in the usual care group occurred outside the hospital, compared with zero deaths among those in COVID Watch.
 

More than half of program participants were Black or Latino

The messaging system also reduced mortality rates among “all major racial and ethnic subgroups,” the researchers said, with more than 50% of the patients enrolled in COVID Watch having been Black or Latino.

“This is important because Black and Hispanic communities have experienced higher exposure and infection rates, decreased access to care, and have had higher mortality rates,” Dr. Delgado said. “Therefore, the results imply that this type of program could play a role in decreasing disparities in COVID outcomes if scaled more broadly.”
 

Outside expert: COVID Watch bring new approach to digital health monitoring

The study not only highlights the efficacy and sustainment of the COVID Watch program, but it sheds light on the possibility of using text message monitoring systems on other chronic disease conditions, said Jamie Faro, PhD, who was not involved in the study.

“It brings a new approach to health monitoring using digital means, which may lessen the burden on health care providers and be more cost effective than usual care approaches,” said Dr. Faro, who is assistant professor at the department of population and quantitative health sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. “Text messaging, which is used by over 80% of Americans, can allow us to reach a large percentage of the population for remote health care monitoring.”

Researchers of the current study said the findings “reveal a model for outpatient health system management of patients with COVID-19 and possibly other conditions where the early detection of clinical declines is critical.” Dr. Faro said that COVID Watch can have a measurable impact on an outcome that is truly life or death. However, it would be critical to understand how to reach those who either “were not offered or refused to take part in the program.”

The authors of the paper and Dr. Faro had no disclosures.

“When 900-years-old you reach, look as good you will not.” –Yoda

I’ve been on a roll lately: 100, 94, 90, 97, 94. These aren’t grades or even what I scratched on my scorecard for 18 holes (that’s more like 112), but rather patients I’ve seen.

Our oldest-old have been in COVID-19 protection for the last couple of years and only now feel safe to come out again. Many have skin cancers. Some of them have many. I’m grateful that for all their health problems, basal cell carcinomas at least I can cure. And while I treat them, I get the benefit of hearing directly from our elders. I love asking them for general life advice. Here are a few things I learned.

From a 94-year-old woman who was just discharged from the hospital for sepsis: First, sepsis can sneak up from behind and jump you when you’re 94. She was sitting in a waiting room for a routine exam when she passed out and woke up in the ICU. She made it home and is back on her feet, literally. When I asked her how she made it though, she was very matter of fact. Trust that the doctors know what’s right. Trust that someone will tell you what to do next. Trust that you know your own body and what you can and cannot do. Ask for help, then simply trust it will all work out. It usually does.

From a 97-year-old fighter pilot who fought in the Korean War: Let regrets drop away and live to fight another day. He’s had multiple marriages, built and lost companies, been fired and fired at, and made some doozy mistakes, some that caused considerable pain and collateral damage. But each day is new and requires your best. He has lived long enough to love dozens of grandkids and give away more than what most people ever make. His bottom line, if you worry and fret and regret, you’ll make even more mistakes ahead. Look ahead, the ground never comes up from behind you.

From a 94-year-old whose son was killed in a car accident nearly 60 years ago: You can be both happy and sad. When she retold the story of how the police knocked on her door with the news that her son was dead, she started to cry. Even 60 years isn’t long enough to blunt such pain. She still thinks of him often and to this day sometimes finds it difficult to believe he’s gone. Such pain never leaves you. But she is still a happy person with countless joys and is still having such fun. If you live long enough, both will likely be true.

From a 90-year old who still played tennis: “Just one and one.” That is, one beer and one shot, every day. No more. No less. I daren’t say I recommend this one; however, it might also be the social aspect of drinking that matters. He also advised to be free with friendships. You’ll have many people come in and out of your life; be open to new ones all the time. Also sometimes let your friends win.

From a 100-year-old, I asked how he managed to get through the Great Depression, WWII, civil unrest of the 1950s, and the Vietnam War. His reply? “To be honest, I’ve never seen anything quite like this before.”

When there’s time, consider asking for advice from those elders who happen to have an appointment with you. Bring you wisdom, they will.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“When 900-years-old you reach, look as good you will not.” –Yoda

I’ve been on a roll lately: 100, 94, 90, 97, 94. These aren’t grades or even what I scratched on my scorecard for 18 holes (that’s more like 112), but rather patients I’ve seen.

Our oldest-old have been in COVID-19 protection for the last couple of years and only now feel safe to come out again. Many have skin cancers. Some of them have many. I’m grateful that for all their health problems, basal cell carcinomas at least I can cure. And while I treat them, I get the benefit of hearing directly from our elders. I love asking them for general life advice. Here are a few things I learned.

From a 94-year-old woman who was just discharged from the hospital for sepsis: First, sepsis can sneak up from behind and jump you when you’re 94. She was sitting in a waiting room for a routine exam when she passed out and woke up in the ICU. She made it home and is back on her feet, literally. When I asked her how she made it though, she was very matter of fact. Trust that the doctors know what’s right. Trust that someone will tell you what to do next. Trust that you know your own body and what you can and cannot do. Ask for help, then simply trust it will all work out. It usually does.

From a 97-year-old fighter pilot who fought in the Korean War: Let regrets drop away and live to fight another day. He’s had multiple marriages, built and lost companies, been fired and fired at, and made some doozy mistakes, some that caused considerable pain and collateral damage. But each day is new and requires your best. He has lived long enough to love dozens of grandkids and give away more than what most people ever make. His bottom line, if you worry and fret and regret, you’ll make even more mistakes ahead. Look ahead, the ground never comes up from behind you.

From a 94-year-old whose son was killed in a car accident nearly 60 years ago: You can be both happy and sad. When she retold the story of how the police knocked on her door with the news that her son was dead, she started to cry. Even 60 years isn’t long enough to blunt such pain. She still thinks of him often and to this day sometimes finds it difficult to believe he’s gone. Such pain never leaves you. But she is still a happy person with countless joys and is still having such fun. If you live long enough, both will likely be true.

From a 90-year old who still played tennis: “Just one and one.” That is, one beer and one shot, every day. No more. No less. I daren’t say I recommend this one; however, it might also be the social aspect of drinking that matters. He also advised to be free with friendships. You’ll have many people come in and out of your life; be open to new ones all the time. Also sometimes let your friends win.

From a 100-year-old, I asked how he managed to get through the Great Depression, WWII, civil unrest of the 1950s, and the Vietnam War. His reply? “To be honest, I’ve never seen anything quite like this before.”

When there’s time, consider asking for advice from those elders who happen to have an appointment with you. Bring you wisdom, they will.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

“When 900-years-old you reach, look as good you will not.” –Yoda

I’ve been on a roll lately: 100, 94, 90, 97, 94. These aren’t grades or even what I scratched on my scorecard for 18 holes (that’s more like 112), but rather patients I’ve seen.

Our oldest-old have been in COVID-19 protection for the last couple of years and only now feel safe to come out again. Many have skin cancers. Some of them have many. I’m grateful that for all their health problems, basal cell carcinomas at least I can cure. And while I treat them, I get the benefit of hearing directly from our elders. I love asking them for general life advice. Here are a few things I learned.

From a 94-year-old woman who was just discharged from the hospital for sepsis: First, sepsis can sneak up from behind and jump you when you’re 94. She was sitting in a waiting room for a routine exam when she passed out and woke up in the ICU. She made it home and is back on her feet, literally. When I asked her how she made it though, she was very matter of fact. Trust that the doctors know what’s right. Trust that someone will tell you what to do next. Trust that you know your own body and what you can and cannot do. Ask for help, then simply trust it will all work out. It usually does.

From a 97-year-old fighter pilot who fought in the Korean War: Let regrets drop away and live to fight another day. He’s had multiple marriages, built and lost companies, been fired and fired at, and made some doozy mistakes, some that caused considerable pain and collateral damage. But each day is new and requires your best. He has lived long enough to love dozens of grandkids and give away more than what most people ever make. His bottom line, if you worry and fret and regret, you’ll make even more mistakes ahead. Look ahead, the ground never comes up from behind you.

From a 94-year-old whose son was killed in a car accident nearly 60 years ago: You can be both happy and sad. When she retold the story of how the police knocked on her door with the news that her son was dead, she started to cry. Even 60 years isn’t long enough to blunt such pain. She still thinks of him often and to this day sometimes finds it difficult to believe he’s gone. Such pain never leaves you. But she is still a happy person with countless joys and is still having such fun. If you live long enough, both will likely be true.

From a 90-year old who still played tennis: “Just one and one.” That is, one beer and one shot, every day. No more. No less. I daren’t say I recommend this one; however, it might also be the social aspect of drinking that matters. He also advised to be free with friendships. You’ll have many people come in and out of your life; be open to new ones all the time. Also sometimes let your friends win.

From a 100-year-old, I asked how he managed to get through the Great Depression, WWII, civil unrest of the 1950s, and the Vietnam War. His reply? “To be honest, I’ve never seen anything quite like this before.”

When there’s time, consider asking for advice from those elders who happen to have an appointment with you. Bring you wisdom, they will.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

If you are a psychiatrist who has done a public lecture in the past year, you likely encountered the question, “What about Britney’s conservatorship?” Many psychiatrists are far removed from conservatorship evaluations, doing the different yet still important work of alleviating mental suffering without paddling in the controversial waters of involuntary treatment. Others judiciously hide behind the veil of the prudent Goldwater Rule in avoiding such discussions altogether. Regardless of whether psychiatry attempts to stay out of such affairs publicly, our field remains intimately involved in the process itself. This can lead to negative views of psychiatry among the public – that of a medical specialty with ulterior motives operating at the behest of the state.

Some psychiatrists simplistically advocate against any form of involuntary treatment.¹ In many ways, this may appear noble. However, the reality of mental illness, with its potential harm to self and others, introduces the potential for dire consequences of such a position. If society is unwilling to accept behavior that may lead to harm, but psychiatry is unwilling to intervene, then other avenues of restricting such behavior will emerge. Those avenues traditionally have included conscription of law enforcement and the incarceration of patients with mental illness.

Yet, therein lies the conundrum of Ms. Spears and other celebrities on conservatorship. At face value, they do not appear to require conservatorship. We do not think it violates the Goldwater Rule to render this observation. In fact, it may reassure the public if the American Psychiatric Association, as well as individual psychiatrists, were more open about the goal, intent, and limitations of conservatorships.

The process of establishing conservatorships is not driven solely by mental health professionals. Rather, conservatorship laws permit society to enact, through psychiatrists, its desire to alleviate behaviors considered unacceptable in the context of mental illness.

In California, it has resulted in our famous or infamous “5150,” which asks psychiatrists to comment on the danger to self, danger to others, and grave disability of our patients. It can be helpful to frame these criteria regarding the relationship between society and our patients. The criteria of danger to self represents society’s wish to intervene in cases of patients with imminent intent of self-harm, operating under the presumption that a suicide can be prevented. Danger to others represents the societal angst, at times exaggerated,² about people with mental illness perpetuating homicides, especially when off their medication. Grave disability represents public shame at the thought of persons so lost to mental illness they are unable to provide for themselves or even accept food, clothing, and shelter.

While an involuntary hold is necessary at times, working against our patients engenders revolting feelings. We often rationalize involuntary holds as illustrative of sincere compassion for our patients’ suffering and an attempt to lift them out of such tragic conditions. Our patients regularly do not feel our compassion when we are making an argument in a hearing for the restriction of their rights. They see our efforts as an attempt to lock them away “for their own good” because of society’s discomfort with homelessness. As such, we wonder whether our role becomes one of doctors for society, prescribing a treatment for the emotional distress of the community, and at times for ourselves, rather than that of the patient.

One may be perplexed as to how a celebrity could be considered gravely disabled. Celebrities generally have enough income to afford food, clothing, and shelter. One could justifiably ask why an individual with no history of violence would be considered a danger to others. Similarly, one may wonder how, in the absence of any reported attempts to engage in self-harm, with no visible marks of self-harm, someone is determined to be a danger to himself or herself. The bafflement on the part of one on the outside of these determinations can be sharply contrasted by the desperation felt by family members whose loved ones with mental illness appear to meet those criteria yet are consistently turned away by mental health programs and hospitals.

Not uncommonly, it is families advocating for involuntary hospitalization – while lamenting our strict criteria – that prevent doctors from intervening until some tragic fate befalls their loved ones. They criticize what they consider to be too-stringent mental health laws and are infuriated by seemingly obtuse insurance policies limiting care to patients. Most of our colleagues working with those who have severe mental illness share the frustration of these families over the scarcity of psychiatry beds. Therefore, it is particularly shocking when the most mediatized story about conservatorship is not about how hard it is to obtain. The story is about a singer who was seemingly safe, caring for herself, and yet still ended up on a conservatorship.

We wonder whether there is a question of magnitude. Are homeless patients more difficult to place on conservatorship because society sees a lesser stake? One could argue that Ms. Spears and other celebrities would have so much to lose in a single episode of mental illness. A week with mania or psychosis could cause irreparable damage to their persona, opportunity for employment, and their fortune. On the contrary, many of our patients on conservatorship have little to their names, and no one keeping up on their reputation. Triers of facts should ask themselves about the nature of their motivations. Envy, a desire to live vicariously through celebrities, or even less ethical motivations – such as a desire to control and exert authority over those individuals – can influence our decisions.

Throughout the past year, when asked about Ms. Spears, we have pointed out the obvious – she seemingly has a life incompatible with meeting criteria for a psychiatric conservatorship. We have outlined the role, history, and limitations of psychiatric conservatorship. We have shared how such cases are often approached, when required for our own patients or when asked by the court to do so. We have discussed the significant oversight of the system, including the public conservator’s office, which frequently refuses petitions outright. There are hearing officers, who, in the early stages of this process, weigh our case against that of the patients, aided by passionately driven patient advocates. There is the public defender’s office, which, at least in San Diego, vigorously defends the rights of those with mental illness. Most importantly, there are judges who adjudicate those cases with diligence and humility.

As the story has continued to be in the news, we have had numerous conversations about Ms. Spears’ conservatorship with colleagues sharing strong opinions on her case. Many of these colleagues do not have forensic practices and we inevitably find ourselves responding along the lines of, “It is easy to say this, but quite a different thing to prove it in court.” It is hard not to imagine testifying in such a high-profile conservatorship case; testifying, in front of jurors, about a celebrity who may have engaged in what some considered to be unusual behavior.

Conservatorship laws are not about the minutia or criteria of a specific mental health disorder. Patients do not meet criteria for conservatorship by having a certain number of delusional thoughts or a specific type of hallucination. Patients meet criteria for conservatorship because of state-enacted laws based on social factors – such as danger and self-care – the population wishes to treat, even if against the will of those treated. Under this light, one must recognize that a conservatorship trial is not just about mental illness but about how society wants to care for human beings. Psychiatric illness itself is not grounds for conservatorship. Oftentimes, severely ill patients win a hearing for grave disability by simply accepting a referral for housing, showing up to court clothed, and eating the meals provided at the hospital.

With understanding that these laws pertain specifically to behaviors resulting from mental illness that society finds unacceptable, the narrative of a celebrity conservatorship can be considered differently. The stories of celebrities being used and abused by deleterious beings and deleterious conditions have become a genre. Paul Prenter’s treatment of Freddie Mercury documented in the 2018 movie “Bohemian Rhapsody” and John Reid’s alleged betrayal of Elton John, who was suffering from a substance use disorder, documented in the 2019 movie “Rocketman,” are recent examples, among many.

Imagine yourself, as a juror, deciding on the fate of a celebrity. Would you require them to have lost all property, including the clothing on their backs, before intervening? Consider the next time you hear of a celebrity swindled from his or her fortune in a time of crisis and whether it would have been righteous to prevent it. We personally have, at times, argued for restraint in psychiatry’s desire to have more power. This concern extends not only to our ability to control people, but also our ability to force them into being subjected to psychotropic medications with well-known side effects.

At the same time, we remain cognizant of the magnified impact of adverse outcomes on public figures. John Hinckley Jr. did not attempt to murder a bystander; he attempted to kill the president of the United States when he shot at President Ronald Reagan in 1981. That incident led to considerable changes in our laws about insanity. More recently, society was particularly affected by Tom Hanks’ COVID-19 diagnosis. Mr. Hanks’ illness led to scientifically measurable changes in the public’s beliefs regarding the pandemic.³

On the other hand, and of equal importance to the desire to protect public figures from adverse events, is the risk that those same laws intended to protect will harm. From unsanitary asylums to disproportionate placements of minorities on psychiatric holds, we are concerned with unbridled control in the hands of those meant to cure and care. Sadly, there is also a cinematic genre of unprincipled and detrimental mental health treatment, from Brian Wilson’s treatment by his psychologist documented in “Love & Mercy,” to the upcoming “The Shrink Next Door,” featuring a psychiatrist swindling his patient.

With this additional understanding and analysis, we now ask our colleagues what it would take for them to intervene. Would a celebrity losing $100,000,000 because of mental illness constitute a form of grave disability despite remaining dressed? Would a celebrity engaging in significant drug use constitute a form of self-harm despite still recording albums? Would a celebrity failing to fulfill a social commitment to others, including children, constitute a form of harm to others? Those are not trivial questions to answer, and we are glad the Goldwater Rule reminds us of the limitations of speculating on people we do not know.

Nonetheless, the question of conservatorship is more complex than simply saying: “They make money; they have clothes on; this is absurd.” While this may be a catchy, compelling, and relevant argument, when confronted with a more complete narrative, triers of facts may feel compelled to intervene because, in the end, conservatorship laws are about what society is willing to accept rather than an enumeration of psychiatric symptoms.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1. Badre N et al. “Coercion and the critical psychiatrist.” In Critical Psychiatry. Springer, Cham, 2019. doi: 10.1007/97-3-030-02732-2_7.

2. Barnes SS and Badre N. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Jul 1;67(7)784-6.

3. Myrick JG and Willoughby JF. Health Commun. 2021 Jan 14;1-9.

If you are a psychiatrist who has done a public lecture in the past year, you likely encountered the question, “What about Britney’s conservatorship?” Many psychiatrists are far removed from conservatorship evaluations, doing the different yet still important work of alleviating mental suffering without paddling in the controversial waters of involuntary treatment. Others judiciously hide behind the veil of the prudent Goldwater Rule in avoiding such discussions altogether. Regardless of whether psychiatry attempts to stay out of such affairs publicly, our field remains intimately involved in the process itself. This can lead to negative views of psychiatry among the public – that of a medical specialty with ulterior motives operating at the behest of the state.

Some psychiatrists simplistically advocate against any form of involuntary treatment.¹ In many ways, this may appear noble. However, the reality of mental illness, with its potential harm to self and others, introduces the potential for dire consequences of such a position. If society is unwilling to accept behavior that may lead to harm, but psychiatry is unwilling to intervene, then other avenues of restricting such behavior will emerge. Those avenues traditionally have included conscription of law enforcement and the incarceration of patients with mental illness.

Yet, therein lies the conundrum of Ms. Spears and other celebrities on conservatorship. At face value, they do not appear to require conservatorship. We do not think it violates the Goldwater Rule to render this observation. In fact, it may reassure the public if the American Psychiatric Association, as well as individual psychiatrists, were more open about the goal, intent, and limitations of conservatorships.

The process of establishing conservatorships is not driven solely by mental health professionals. Rather, conservatorship laws permit society to enact, through psychiatrists, its desire to alleviate behaviors considered unacceptable in the context of mental illness.

In California, it has resulted in our famous or infamous “5150,” which asks psychiatrists to comment on the danger to self, danger to others, and grave disability of our patients. It can be helpful to frame these criteria regarding the relationship between society and our patients. The criteria of danger to self represents society’s wish to intervene in cases of patients with imminent intent of self-harm, operating under the presumption that a suicide can be prevented. Danger to others represents the societal angst, at times exaggerated,² about people with mental illness perpetuating homicides, especially when off their medication. Grave disability represents public shame at the thought of persons so lost to mental illness they are unable to provide for themselves or even accept food, clothing, and shelter.

While an involuntary hold is necessary at times, working against our patients engenders revolting feelings. We often rationalize involuntary holds as illustrative of sincere compassion for our patients’ suffering and an attempt to lift them out of such tragic conditions. Our patients regularly do not feel our compassion when we are making an argument in a hearing for the restriction of their rights. They see our efforts as an attempt to lock them away “for their own good” because of society’s discomfort with homelessness. As such, we wonder whether our role becomes one of doctors for society, prescribing a treatment for the emotional distress of the community, and at times for ourselves, rather than that of the patient.

One may be perplexed as to how a celebrity could be considered gravely disabled. Celebrities generally have enough income to afford food, clothing, and shelter. One could justifiably ask why an individual with no history of violence would be considered a danger to others. Similarly, one may wonder how, in the absence of any reported attempts to engage in self-harm, with no visible marks of self-harm, someone is determined to be a danger to himself or herself. The bafflement on the part of one on the outside of these determinations can be sharply contrasted by the desperation felt by family members whose loved ones with mental illness appear to meet those criteria yet are consistently turned away by mental health programs and hospitals.

Not uncommonly, it is families advocating for involuntary hospitalization – while lamenting our strict criteria – that prevent doctors from intervening until some tragic fate befalls their loved ones. They criticize what they consider to be too-stringent mental health laws and are infuriated by seemingly obtuse insurance policies limiting care to patients. Most of our colleagues working with those who have severe mental illness share the frustration of these families over the scarcity of psychiatry beds. Therefore, it is particularly shocking when the most mediatized story about conservatorship is not about how hard it is to obtain. The story is about a singer who was seemingly safe, caring for herself, and yet still ended up on a conservatorship.

We wonder whether there is a question of magnitude. Are homeless patients more difficult to place on conservatorship because society sees a lesser stake? One could argue that Ms. Spears and other celebrities would have so much to lose in a single episode of mental illness. A week with mania or psychosis could cause irreparable damage to their persona, opportunity for employment, and their fortune. On the contrary, many of our patients on conservatorship have little to their names, and no one keeping up on their reputation. Triers of facts should ask themselves about the nature of their motivations. Envy, a desire to live vicariously through celebrities, or even less ethical motivations – such as a desire to control and exert authority over those individuals – can influence our decisions.

Throughout the past year, when asked about Ms. Spears, we have pointed out the obvious – she seemingly has a life incompatible with meeting criteria for a psychiatric conservatorship. We have outlined the role, history, and limitations of psychiatric conservatorship. We have shared how such cases are often approached, when required for our own patients or when asked by the court to do so. We have discussed the significant oversight of the system, including the public conservator’s office, which frequently refuses petitions outright. There are hearing officers, who, in the early stages of this process, weigh our case against that of the patients, aided by passionately driven patient advocates. There is the public defender’s office, which, at least in San Diego, vigorously defends the rights of those with mental illness. Most importantly, there are judges who adjudicate those cases with diligence and humility.

As the story has continued to be in the news, we have had numerous conversations about Ms. Spears’ conservatorship with colleagues sharing strong opinions on her case. Many of these colleagues do not have forensic practices and we inevitably find ourselves responding along the lines of, “It is easy to say this, but quite a different thing to prove it in court.” It is hard not to imagine testifying in such a high-profile conservatorship case; testifying, in front of jurors, about a celebrity who may have engaged in what some considered to be unusual behavior.

Conservatorship laws are not about the minutia or criteria of a specific mental health disorder. Patients do not meet criteria for conservatorship by having a certain number of delusional thoughts or a specific type of hallucination. Patients meet criteria for conservatorship because of state-enacted laws based on social factors – such as danger and self-care – the population wishes to treat, even if against the will of those treated. Under this light, one must recognize that a conservatorship trial is not just about mental illness but about how society wants to care for human beings. Psychiatric illness itself is not grounds for conservatorship. Oftentimes, severely ill patients win a hearing for grave disability by simply accepting a referral for housing, showing up to court clothed, and eating the meals provided at the hospital.

With understanding that these laws pertain specifically to behaviors resulting from mental illness that society finds unacceptable, the narrative of a celebrity conservatorship can be considered differently. The stories of celebrities being used and abused by deleterious beings and deleterious conditions have become a genre. Paul Prenter’s treatment of Freddie Mercury documented in the 2018 movie “Bohemian Rhapsody” and John Reid’s alleged betrayal of Elton John, who was suffering from a substance use disorder, documented in the 2019 movie “Rocketman,” are recent examples, among many.

Imagine yourself, as a juror, deciding on the fate of a celebrity. Would you require them to have lost all property, including the clothing on their backs, before intervening? Consider the next time you hear of a celebrity swindled from his or her fortune in a time of crisis and whether it would have been righteous to prevent it. We personally have, at times, argued for restraint in psychiatry’s desire to have more power. This concern extends not only to our ability to control people, but also our ability to force them into being subjected to psychotropic medications with well-known side effects.

At the same time, we remain cognizant of the magnified impact of adverse outcomes on public figures. John Hinckley Jr. did not attempt to murder a bystander; he attempted to kill the president of the United States when he shot at President Ronald Reagan in 1981. That incident led to considerable changes in our laws about insanity. More recently, society was particularly affected by Tom Hanks’ COVID-19 diagnosis. Mr. Hanks’ illness led to scientifically measurable changes in the public’s beliefs regarding the pandemic.³

On the other hand, and of equal importance to the desire to protect public figures from adverse events, is the risk that those same laws intended to protect will harm. From unsanitary asylums to disproportionate placements of minorities on psychiatric holds, we are concerned with unbridled control in the hands of those meant to cure and care. Sadly, there is also a cinematic genre of unprincipled and detrimental mental health treatment, from Brian Wilson’s treatment by his psychologist documented in “Love & Mercy,” to the upcoming “The Shrink Next Door,” featuring a psychiatrist swindling his patient.

With this additional understanding and analysis, we now ask our colleagues what it would take for them to intervene. Would a celebrity losing $100,000,000 because of mental illness constitute a form of grave disability despite remaining dressed? Would a celebrity engaging in significant drug use constitute a form of self-harm despite still recording albums? Would a celebrity failing to fulfill a social commitment to others, including children, constitute a form of harm to others? Those are not trivial questions to answer, and we are glad the Goldwater Rule reminds us of the limitations of speculating on people we do not know.

Nonetheless, the question of conservatorship is more complex than simply saying: “They make money; they have clothes on; this is absurd.” While this may be a catchy, compelling, and relevant argument, when confronted with a more complete narrative, triers of facts may feel compelled to intervene because, in the end, conservatorship laws are about what society is willing to accept rather than an enumeration of psychiatric symptoms.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1. Badre N et al. “Coercion and the critical psychiatrist.” In Critical Psychiatry. Springer, Cham, 2019. doi: 10.1007/97-3-030-02732-2_7.

2. Barnes SS and Badre N. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Jul 1;67(7)784-6.

3. Myrick JG and Willoughby JF. Health Commun. 2021 Jan 14;1-9.

If you are a psychiatrist who has done a public lecture in the past year, you likely encountered the question, “What about Britney’s conservatorship?” Many psychiatrists are far removed from conservatorship evaluations, doing the different yet still important work of alleviating mental suffering without paddling in the controversial waters of involuntary treatment. Others judiciously hide behind the veil of the prudent Goldwater Rule in avoiding such discussions altogether. Regardless of whether psychiatry attempts to stay out of such affairs publicly, our field remains intimately involved in the process itself. This can lead to negative views of psychiatry among the public – that of a medical specialty with ulterior motives operating at the behest of the state.

Some psychiatrists simplistically advocate against any form of involuntary treatment.¹ In many ways, this may appear noble. However, the reality of mental illness, with its potential harm to self and others, introduces the potential for dire consequences of such a position. If society is unwilling to accept behavior that may lead to harm, but psychiatry is unwilling to intervene, then other avenues of restricting such behavior will emerge. Those avenues traditionally have included conscription of law enforcement and the incarceration of patients with mental illness.

Yet, therein lies the conundrum of Ms. Spears and other celebrities on conservatorship. At face value, they do not appear to require conservatorship. We do not think it violates the Goldwater Rule to render this observation. In fact, it may reassure the public if the American Psychiatric Association, as well as individual psychiatrists, were more open about the goal, intent, and limitations of conservatorships.

The process of establishing conservatorships is not driven solely by mental health professionals. Rather, conservatorship laws permit society to enact, through psychiatrists, its desire to alleviate behaviors considered unacceptable in the context of mental illness.

In California, it has resulted in our famous or infamous “5150,” which asks psychiatrists to comment on the danger to self, danger to others, and grave disability of our patients. It can be helpful to frame these criteria regarding the relationship between society and our patients. The criteria of danger to self represents society’s wish to intervene in cases of patients with imminent intent of self-harm, operating under the presumption that a suicide can be prevented. Danger to others represents the societal angst, at times exaggerated,² about people with mental illness perpetuating homicides, especially when off their medication. Grave disability represents public shame at the thought of persons so lost to mental illness they are unable to provide for themselves or even accept food, clothing, and shelter.

While an involuntary hold is necessary at times, working against our patients engenders revolting feelings. We often rationalize involuntary holds as illustrative of sincere compassion for our patients’ suffering and an attempt to lift them out of such tragic conditions. Our patients regularly do not feel our compassion when we are making an argument in a hearing for the restriction of their rights. They see our efforts as an attempt to lock them away “for their own good” because of society’s discomfort with homelessness. As such, we wonder whether our role becomes one of doctors for society, prescribing a treatment for the emotional distress of the community, and at times for ourselves, rather than that of the patient.

One may be perplexed as to how a celebrity could be considered gravely disabled. Celebrities generally have enough income to afford food, clothing, and shelter. One could justifiably ask why an individual with no history of violence would be considered a danger to others. Similarly, one may wonder how, in the absence of any reported attempts to engage in self-harm, with no visible marks of self-harm, someone is determined to be a danger to himself or herself. The bafflement on the part of one on the outside of these determinations can be sharply contrasted by the desperation felt by family members whose loved ones with mental illness appear to meet those criteria yet are consistently turned away by mental health programs and hospitals.

Not uncommonly, it is families advocating for involuntary hospitalization – while lamenting our strict criteria – that prevent doctors from intervening until some tragic fate befalls their loved ones. They criticize what they consider to be too-stringent mental health laws and are infuriated by seemingly obtuse insurance policies limiting care to patients. Most of our colleagues working with those who have severe mental illness share the frustration of these families over the scarcity of psychiatry beds. Therefore, it is particularly shocking when the most mediatized story about conservatorship is not about how hard it is to obtain. The story is about a singer who was seemingly safe, caring for herself, and yet still ended up on a conservatorship.

We wonder whether there is a question of magnitude. Are homeless patients more difficult to place on conservatorship because society sees a lesser stake? One could argue that Ms. Spears and other celebrities would have so much to lose in a single episode of mental illness. A week with mania or psychosis could cause irreparable damage to their persona, opportunity for employment, and their fortune. On the contrary, many of our patients on conservatorship have little to their names, and no one keeping up on their reputation. Triers of facts should ask themselves about the nature of their motivations. Envy, a desire to live vicariously through celebrities, or even less ethical motivations – such as a desire to control and exert authority over those individuals – can influence our decisions.

Throughout the past year, when asked about Ms. Spears, we have pointed out the obvious – she seemingly has a life incompatible with meeting criteria for a psychiatric conservatorship. We have outlined the role, history, and limitations of psychiatric conservatorship. We have shared how such cases are often approached, when required for our own patients or when asked by the court to do so. We have discussed the significant oversight of the system, including the public conservator’s office, which frequently refuses petitions outright. There are hearing officers, who, in the early stages of this process, weigh our case against that of the patients, aided by passionately driven patient advocates. There is the public defender’s office, which, at least in San Diego, vigorously defends the rights of those with mental illness. Most importantly, there are judges who adjudicate those cases with diligence and humility.

As the story has continued to be in the news, we have had numerous conversations about Ms. Spears’ conservatorship with colleagues sharing strong opinions on her case. Many of these colleagues do not have forensic practices and we inevitably find ourselves responding along the lines of, “It is easy to say this, but quite a different thing to prove it in court.” It is hard not to imagine testifying in such a high-profile conservatorship case; testifying, in front of jurors, about a celebrity who may have engaged in what some considered to be unusual behavior.

Conservatorship laws are not about the minutia or criteria of a specific mental health disorder. Patients do not meet criteria for conservatorship by having a certain number of delusional thoughts or a specific type of hallucination. Patients meet criteria for conservatorship because of state-enacted laws based on social factors – such as danger and self-care – the population wishes to treat, even if against the will of those treated. Under this light, one must recognize that a conservatorship trial is not just about mental illness but about how society wants to care for human beings. Psychiatric illness itself is not grounds for conservatorship. Oftentimes, severely ill patients win a hearing for grave disability by simply accepting a referral for housing, showing up to court clothed, and eating the meals provided at the hospital.

With understanding that these laws pertain specifically to behaviors resulting from mental illness that society finds unacceptable, the narrative of a celebrity conservatorship can be considered differently. The stories of celebrities being used and abused by deleterious beings and deleterious conditions have become a genre. Paul Prenter’s treatment of Freddie Mercury documented in the 2018 movie “Bohemian Rhapsody” and John Reid’s alleged betrayal of Elton John, who was suffering from a substance use disorder, documented in the 2019 movie “Rocketman,” are recent examples, among many.

Imagine yourself, as a juror, deciding on the fate of a celebrity. Would you require them to have lost all property, including the clothing on their backs, before intervening? Consider the next time you hear of a celebrity swindled from his or her fortune in a time of crisis and whether it would have been righteous to prevent it. We personally have, at times, argued for restraint in psychiatry’s desire to have more power. This concern extends not only to our ability to control people, but also our ability to force them into being subjected to psychotropic medications with well-known side effects.

At the same time, we remain cognizant of the magnified impact of adverse outcomes on public figures. John Hinckley Jr. did not attempt to murder a bystander; he attempted to kill the president of the United States when he shot at President Ronald Reagan in 1981. That incident led to considerable changes in our laws about insanity. More recently, society was particularly affected by Tom Hanks’ COVID-19 diagnosis. Mr. Hanks’ illness led to scientifically measurable changes in the public’s beliefs regarding the pandemic.³

On the other hand, and of equal importance to the desire to protect public figures from adverse events, is the risk that those same laws intended to protect will harm. From unsanitary asylums to disproportionate placements of minorities on psychiatric holds, we are concerned with unbridled control in the hands of those meant to cure and care. Sadly, there is also a cinematic genre of unprincipled and detrimental mental health treatment, from Brian Wilson’s treatment by his psychologist documented in “Love & Mercy,” to the upcoming “The Shrink Next Door,” featuring a psychiatrist swindling his patient.

With this additional understanding and analysis, we now ask our colleagues what it would take for them to intervene. Would a celebrity losing $100,000,000 because of mental illness constitute a form of grave disability despite remaining dressed? Would a celebrity engaging in significant drug use constitute a form of self-harm despite still recording albums? Would a celebrity failing to fulfill a social commitment to others, including children, constitute a form of harm to others? Those are not trivial questions to answer, and we are glad the Goldwater Rule reminds us of the limitations of speculating on people we do not know.

Nonetheless, the question of conservatorship is more complex than simply saying: “They make money; they have clothes on; this is absurd.” While this may be a catchy, compelling, and relevant argument, when confronted with a more complete narrative, triers of facts may feel compelled to intervene because, in the end, conservatorship laws are about what society is willing to accept rather than an enumeration of psychiatric symptoms.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research.

References

1. Badre N et al. “Coercion and the critical psychiatrist.” In Critical Psychiatry. Springer, Cham, 2019. doi: 10.1007/97-3-030-02732-2_7.

2. Barnes SS and Badre N. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Jul 1;67(7)784-6.

3. Myrick JG and Willoughby JF. Health Commun. 2021 Jan 14;1-9.

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

In November, the office manager of a San Antonio dermatology practice was sentenced to 46 months in prison for defrauding the practice of nearly $350,000 from patient billings and employee profit sharing accounts.

Per the indictment, the practice conducted a nonprofit educational symposium in 2012. A bank account was established to collect contributions for that event, which was supposed to be closed at its conclusion; but the office manager kept it open, and deposited practice receipts into it. She then used the account as her slush fund for travel, property payments, meal purchases, and other personal expenses on credit cards she fraudulently opened in the practice’s name. This continued for several years.

Because this case has received national attention, I am republishing my column on embezzlement, which includes recommendations that could prevent such unfortunate situations from occurring.

Few crimes are more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; but their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: the person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.

Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.

Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Over a year ago, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.

Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.”

Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.

Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.

Ask about computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and should have safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.

Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information websites. (See my previous columns on hiring at http://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/managing-your-practice.)

Look for “red flags.” Examples are employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work; or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.

Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and you will be assured of some measure of recovery should your safeguards fail. In addition, the mere knowledge that your staff is bonded will frighten off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When provided at the bedside of patients hospitalized for heart failure, an electronic health record (EHR) alert with prognostic information did not improve outcomes or appear to have any impact on what treatments were offered.

There was no signal that the EHR prognostic alerts, which identified the 12-month risk of mortality, had any impact on any of a variety of clinical-decision-making metrics or on any of the primary or secondary outcomes, according to Tariq Ahmad, MD, who reported results of the randomized REVEAL-HF trial, presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“These results call into question the hypothesis that accurate prognostic information alone will lead to better clinical decision-making,” said Dr. Ahmad, medical director of the Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and principal investigator of REVEAL-HF.

He acknowledged that the possibility that many clinicians pay little or no attention to EHR alert might have played a role in the negative results.

At four participating Yale-affiliated clinical centers, all patients hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomized as long as they were over the age of 18, had an N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level above 500 pg/mL, and had been placed on IV diuretics within 24 hours of admission. In the experimental arm, the provider at the time of entering orders received an EHR alert with an estimate of the risk of all-cause mortality at 12 months. There was no such alert for patients managed in the control arm.
 

Twelve-month mortality estimates calculated

The all-cause mortality risk was calculated on a sizeable list of variables that included laboratory results, such as cell counts, and patient characteristics, such as weight and age. The risk estimate was displayed along with a five-category color-coded bar to provide context for the risk in the spectrum of very low, low, medium, high, and very high likelihood of death within 12 months.

The 1,590 patients randomized to the experimental arm and the 1,534 patients randomized to the usual care arm did not differ significantly in any baseline characteristics. The median age was about 77 years, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55%. About 29% had an LVEF below 40%, about 40% had chronic kidney disease, and about 30% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization within 12 months was reached by 38.9% and 39.3% (P = 0.82) of the intervention and control arms, respectively. The components of the primary outcome were also nearly identical, as was inpatient mortality (8.4% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.72).

There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes, which included rates of 30-day rehospitalizations, discharge on guideline-recommended heart failure therapies, implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, use of a left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant.

The proportion of patients referred for palliative care was almost identical in the very low, low, and medium risk groups. In the high (23.4 vs. 15.6; P = 0.19) and very high (50% vs. 40%; P = 0.92) groups, there were numerically more referrals in the group randomized to usual care, but these rates did not reach significance.
 

No differences seen in discharge meds

There was essentially no difference between groups in the rates at which patients were discharged on beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid antagonists.

When prespecified subgroups, such as those older than age 75 years relative to those younger, males relative to females, Black versus White participants, patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) relative to preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and intensive care unit versus non-ICU patients, were compared, there were no indications that the EHR alert improved outcomes.

Invited discussant Harriette G. C. Van Spall, MD, director of digital health and virtual care and associate professor of cardiology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., did not dispute the conclusions, but she pointed out several potential explanations for the neutral result.

Not least, nearly 75% of those enrolled had low risk or very low risk for adverse outcomes within 1 year, so the opportunity to show a reduction in events, including all-cause mortality, was limited.

“This was largely a HFpEF population, for which there are no treatments for which a risk score would change therapy,” she said.
 

EHR alert efficacy questioned

There is considerable evidence that risk prediction tools “are common but underutilized in HF,” Dr. Van Spall added. She noted that many clinicians find alerts in the EHR more annoying than informative, and it remains unknown what proportion of clinicians pay attention to them, particularly in the absence of evidence that they lead to meaningful improvements in care over their own clinical judgment.

Dr. Ahmad agreed.

“I think that we need to study these alerts in a clinical trial format,” he said. Acknowledging that alerts have been poorly received by many clinicians, Dr. Ahmad said that trials to validate the impact of any specific alert are needed to improve their credibility. If a positive impact cannot be shown, he said the alert should be eliminated, leaving only the alerts with proven clinical value.

Dr. Ahmad reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Relypsa. Dr. Van Spall reports no potential conflicts of interest.

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

On Nov. 12, president Joe Biden said he will nominate Robert Califf, MD, to be commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the top U.S. regulator of drugs and medical devices.

Dr. Califf, a cardiologist, served as FDA chief in the Obama administration, leading the agency from Feb. 2016 to Jan. 2017.

The coming nomination ends nearly 11 months of speculation over Mr. Biden’s pick to the lead the agency during the ongoing pandemic. Janet Woodcock, MD, an FDA veteran, has been serving as acting commissioner. The White House faced a Tuesday deadline to make a nomination or see Dr. Woodcock’s tenure as acting chief expire under federal law.

The initial reaction to the idea of Dr. Califf’s return to the FDA drew mixed reactions.

The nonprofit watchdog Public Citizen issued a statement about its opposition to the potential nomination of Dr. Califf. Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, said the United States “desperately needs an FDA leader who will reverse the decades-long trend in which the agency’s relationship with the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries has grown dangerously cozier – resulting in regulatory capture of the agency by industry.”

But the idea of Dr. Califf returning to the FDA pleased Harlan Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist who has been a leader in outcomes research.

Dr. Krumholz tweeted that the Biden administration likely was testing the reaction to a possible Dr. Califf nomination before making it official. “I realize that this is being floated and not officially announced ... but the nomination of [Califf] just makes so much sense,” Dr. Krumholz tweeted. Dr. Califf’s “expertise as a researcher, policymaker, clinician are unparalleled. In a time of partisanship, he should be a slam-dunk confirmation.”

Dr. Califf’s 2016 Senate confirmation process was marked by dissent from several Democrats who questioned his ties to industry. But the chamber voted 89-4 to confirm him.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

As 2021 winds down, I reflect on the achievements the rheumatology community has had in the realm of advocacy throughout the year. And there were many: Seven states signed accumulator program bans into law, five states reformed the use of step therapy protocols, Texas passed an innovative “gold carding” law to reduce the burden of prior authorization, and West Virginia passed a rebate pass-through law to directly assist patients with high out-of-pocket costs – the first of its kind in the nation.

Of course, the close of another year also means gearing up for the year ahead. The majority of state legislatures are getting ready to open legislative sessions in the New Year. This means a year of new opportunities and new challenges. As a community, there are some key areas rheumatology will need to focus on during the course of the upcoming year as policy makers return to the business of policy making.

Many in the rheumatology community are aware that the buy and bill acquisition system has come under threat in recent years, mainly from payer mandates to use the alternative white bagging model. In some cases, payers have gone as far as to mandate the practice of “brown bagging,” or home infusion. These practices can endanger patient safety and overall quality of care. A study led by Matthew Baker, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University found that biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care; specifically, home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after infusion, compared with facility infusions, and 28% increased odds of permanent discontinuation of the biologic after emergency department or hospital admission. Additionally, site-of-care research by Paul Fronstin, PhD, at Employee Benefit Research Institute clearly shows that in-office infusion with physician supervision is far more cost effective than hospital and, in some cases, home infusion as well.

Further, the metastasis of these payer mandates is likely to severely limit availability of and access to care. It is unclear whether outpatient infusion, especially in private rheumatology practices, will prove sustainable in a world of white bagging. The net result of an expansion of the white-bagging requirements may well be broad access challenges that inconvenience patients deeply and irresponsibly.

The expansion of these mandates has not come without pushback, and rheumatologists should be prepared to advocate for policy that prohibits payers from mandating the use of white bagging, brown bagging, and home infusion. It is abundantly clear that arguments of safety and cost effectiveness are sufficient grounds for policy makers to curtail the mandatory use of these practices.

Similar to white bagging, another key issue in the year ahead is formulary construction based on the rebate system and proposed policies to address its attendant problems. Propagated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the rebate-based, or kickback, system of formulary construction often rewards higher-priced drugs with preferred placement regardless of whether they are the best and most affordable medications for our patients. A few states are beginning to address the affordability issue by mandating that the rebate/kickback acquired by the PBM be passed back to the patient at the point of sale. West Virginia passed a first-of-its-kind law to ensure that patients who generate drug rebates benefit from them by requiring that their cost shares are reduced by an amount equivalent to the rebate received by a health plan. This policy does not get at the root of the formulary construction problem, but if it is adopted more broadly across the country, it will deliver direct relief to patients who are struggling with out-of-pocket costs associated with prescription drugs. I anticipate that this will be a prominent issue nationwide during the upcoming year with opportunity for rheumatologists to lend their voices.

Many of the rheumatology community’s longstanding issues persist, and while progress has been made, more work remains to be done. Whether it’s accumulator programs, prior authorization, nonmedical switching, or step therapy, there will be opportunities in almost every state to engage in improving our ability to provide excellent care to our patients.

We tend to be motivated into action when one of these individual issues appear in our own state’s legislature; however, consistency of engagement is also important. While it is important to talk to your legislators when you need them to vote a certain way on a certain bill, scheduling a meeting with them or sending them a message detailing some of the issues that the rheumatology community faces before legislatures return in full swing is equally important to establish the relationship.

By making “rheum for action” now, you’ll have more impact when legislation relevant to our daily work does appear in the state legislatures. You can find your state representatives at the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organization’s Action Center.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

As 2021 winds down, I reflect on the achievements the rheumatology community has had in the realm of advocacy throughout the year. And there were many: Seven states signed accumulator program bans into law, five states reformed the use of step therapy protocols, Texas passed an innovative “gold carding” law to reduce the burden of prior authorization, and West Virginia passed a rebate pass-through law to directly assist patients with high out-of-pocket costs – the first of its kind in the nation.

Of course, the close of another year also means gearing up for the year ahead. The majority of state legislatures are getting ready to open legislative sessions in the New Year. This means a year of new opportunities and new challenges. As a community, there are some key areas rheumatology will need to focus on during the course of the upcoming year as policy makers return to the business of policy making.

Many in the rheumatology community are aware that the buy and bill acquisition system has come under threat in recent years, mainly from payer mandates to use the alternative white bagging model. In some cases, payers have gone as far as to mandate the practice of “brown bagging,” or home infusion. These practices can endanger patient safety and overall quality of care. A study led by Matthew Baker, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University found that biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care; specifically, home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after infusion, compared with facility infusions, and 28% increased odds of permanent discontinuation of the biologic after emergency department or hospital admission. Additionally, site-of-care research by Paul Fronstin, PhD, at Employee Benefit Research Institute clearly shows that in-office infusion with physician supervision is far more cost effective than hospital and, in some cases, home infusion as well.

Further, the metastasis of these payer mandates is likely to severely limit availability of and access to care. It is unclear whether outpatient infusion, especially in private rheumatology practices, will prove sustainable in a world of white bagging. The net result of an expansion of the white-bagging requirements may well be broad access challenges that inconvenience patients deeply and irresponsibly.

The expansion of these mandates has not come without pushback, and rheumatologists should be prepared to advocate for policy that prohibits payers from mandating the use of white bagging, brown bagging, and home infusion. It is abundantly clear that arguments of safety and cost effectiveness are sufficient grounds for policy makers to curtail the mandatory use of these practices.

Similar to white bagging, another key issue in the year ahead is formulary construction based on the rebate system and proposed policies to address its attendant problems. Propagated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the rebate-based, or kickback, system of formulary construction often rewards higher-priced drugs with preferred placement regardless of whether they are the best and most affordable medications for our patients. A few states are beginning to address the affordability issue by mandating that the rebate/kickback acquired by the PBM be passed back to the patient at the point of sale. West Virginia passed a first-of-its-kind law to ensure that patients who generate drug rebates benefit from them by requiring that their cost shares are reduced by an amount equivalent to the rebate received by a health plan. This policy does not get at the root of the formulary construction problem, but if it is adopted more broadly across the country, it will deliver direct relief to patients who are struggling with out-of-pocket costs associated with prescription drugs. I anticipate that this will be a prominent issue nationwide during the upcoming year with opportunity for rheumatologists to lend their voices.

Many of the rheumatology community’s longstanding issues persist, and while progress has been made, more work remains to be done. Whether it’s accumulator programs, prior authorization, nonmedical switching, or step therapy, there will be opportunities in almost every state to engage in improving our ability to provide excellent care to our patients.

We tend to be motivated into action when one of these individual issues appear in our own state’s legislature; however, consistency of engagement is also important. While it is important to talk to your legislators when you need them to vote a certain way on a certain bill, scheduling a meeting with them or sending them a message detailing some of the issues that the rheumatology community faces before legislatures return in full swing is equally important to establish the relationship.

By making “rheum for action” now, you’ll have more impact when legislation relevant to our daily work does appear in the state legislatures. You can find your state representatives at the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organization’s Action Center.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

As 2021 winds down, I reflect on the achievements the rheumatology community has had in the realm of advocacy throughout the year. And there were many: Seven states signed accumulator program bans into law, five states reformed the use of step therapy protocols, Texas passed an innovative “gold carding” law to reduce the burden of prior authorization, and West Virginia passed a rebate pass-through law to directly assist patients with high out-of-pocket costs – the first of its kind in the nation.

Of course, the close of another year also means gearing up for the year ahead. The majority of state legislatures are getting ready to open legislative sessions in the New Year. This means a year of new opportunities and new challenges. As a community, there are some key areas rheumatology will need to focus on during the course of the upcoming year as policy makers return to the business of policy making.

Many in the rheumatology community are aware that the buy and bill acquisition system has come under threat in recent years, mainly from payer mandates to use the alternative white bagging model. In some cases, payers have gone as far as to mandate the practice of “brown bagging,” or home infusion. These practices can endanger patient safety and overall quality of care. A study led by Matthew Baker, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University found that biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care; specifically, home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after infusion, compared with facility infusions, and 28% increased odds of permanent discontinuation of the biologic after emergency department or hospital admission. Additionally, site-of-care research by Paul Fronstin, PhD, at Employee Benefit Research Institute clearly shows that in-office infusion with physician supervision is far more cost effective than hospital and, in some cases, home infusion as well.

Further, the metastasis of these payer mandates is likely to severely limit availability of and access to care. It is unclear whether outpatient infusion, especially in private rheumatology practices, will prove sustainable in a world of white bagging. The net result of an expansion of the white-bagging requirements may well be broad access challenges that inconvenience patients deeply and irresponsibly.

The expansion of these mandates has not come without pushback, and rheumatologists should be prepared to advocate for policy that prohibits payers from mandating the use of white bagging, brown bagging, and home infusion. It is abundantly clear that arguments of safety and cost effectiveness are sufficient grounds for policy makers to curtail the mandatory use of these practices.

Similar to white bagging, another key issue in the year ahead is formulary construction based on the rebate system and proposed policies to address its attendant problems. Propagated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the rebate-based, or kickback, system of formulary construction often rewards higher-priced drugs with preferred placement regardless of whether they are the best and most affordable medications for our patients. A few states are beginning to address the affordability issue by mandating that the rebate/kickback acquired by the PBM be passed back to the patient at the point of sale. West Virginia passed a first-of-its-kind law to ensure that patients who generate drug rebates benefit from them by requiring that their cost shares are reduced by an amount equivalent to the rebate received by a health plan. This policy does not get at the root of the formulary construction problem, but if it is adopted more broadly across the country, it will deliver direct relief to patients who are struggling with out-of-pocket costs associated with prescription drugs. I anticipate that this will be a prominent issue nationwide during the upcoming year with opportunity for rheumatologists to lend their voices.

Many of the rheumatology community’s longstanding issues persist, and while progress has been made, more work remains to be done. Whether it’s accumulator programs, prior authorization, nonmedical switching, or step therapy, there will be opportunities in almost every state to engage in improving our ability to provide excellent care to our patients.

We tend to be motivated into action when one of these individual issues appear in our own state’s legislature; however, consistency of engagement is also important. While it is important to talk to your legislators when you need them to vote a certain way on a certain bill, scheduling a meeting with them or sending them a message detailing some of the issues that the rheumatology community faces before legislatures return in full swing is equally important to establish the relationship.

By making “rheum for action” now, you’ll have more impact when legislation relevant to our daily work does appear in the state legislatures. You can find your state representatives at the Coalition for State Rheumatology Organization’s Action Center.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is President of the CSRO, past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The path to more effective use of clinical pathways in oncology practice lies in greater collaboration between the various sectors – oncology practices, payors, employers, pathways’ vendors, pharmaceutical manufacturers and patients – said Winston Wong, PharmD, president of W-Squared Group in Longboat Key, Fla., and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Pathways.

Dr. Wong presented findings from the journal’s annual Oncology Clinical Pathways Benchmarking Survey at the Oncology Clinical Pathways Congress, which was held in October. As fee for service gives way to performance-based and risk-bearing reimbursements, he said, “we are observing renewed interest in pathways implementation among a more diverse group of [health care providers].”

More survey respondents said they expected to implement pathways within the next 2 years than in past surveys. “I think it’s partly because payors are starting to delegate more care decisions back to oncology practices, making them more accountable for the care they provide,” Dr. Wong said.

The 2021 survey included 871 respondents, most of them direct care providers based in community practices. At 94%, most said they believed clinical pathways increased quality of care, 87% said they improved clinical outcomes, and 84% said they controlled costs.

Also presented at the meeting were preliminary findings of the JCP 2021 Care Pathways Working Group, which identified barriers to wider clinical pathways use. These include a fragmented health care system, minimal interoperability between systems, lack of integration into practice work flows, lack of reduction in administrative burden and lack of understanding by payers of the impact of social determinants of health.

Oncology clinical pathways are protocols and drug regimens for cancer care. They are used by oncology practices, academic medical centers, health systems, payors, and third-party vendors to address efficacy, safety, tolerability, and cost, but physicians have raised concerns about the administrative burden of working with pathways or pathways that emphasize cost-cutting at the expense of treatment choices or the flexibility to respond to unique patient circumstances.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology responded to member concerns about pathways in a 2016 Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology. The following year, ASCO issued Criteria for High-Quality Clinical Pathways, offering a mechanism for evaluating the quality of a pathway, which according to ASCO’s criteria should be expert driven, evidence based, patient focused, up to date, and comprehensive, with multiple stakeholder input.

“There’s uncertainty among providers as the health care system continues to evolve toward value-based care models,” said Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s vice president of care delivery. “There are a lot of challenges. Practices are at different points in their journey toward value-based care and how to reconcile their care delivery models with the alternate payment models.”

Robin T. Zon, MD, FACP, FASCO, a medical oncologist at Michiana Hematology Oncology in Mishawaka, Ind., and chair of ASCO’s Pathways Task Force, which has since disbanded, was asked if she thought integration of pathways into practice has improved in the 4 years since the task force completed its work. “We think so, but we don’t have the data to support that conclusion,” she replied. “We were concerned about how we could make life easier for clinicians having to deal with preauthorization and helping them with the administrative burdens. Our society is trying to point to the path forward.”
 

Social determinants come to the fore

Also widely discussed at the congress was the need for greater equity in health care and greater responsiveness to social determinants of health, Dr. Wong said. Disparities in care are common throughout chronic disease care, and social determinants are getting more attention with the growing emphasis on patient-centered care.

Patient preferences and circumstances come into play, for example, when the patient can’t afford a prescribed treatment, or if a recommended protocol of infusions for 4 or 5 days in a row conflicts with the patient’s need to keep working. “If you don’t have a caregiver readily able to take you to the doctor’s office, that impacts your choice of treatment,” Dr. Wong said. Other social factors include geography, life experience, tolerance for side effects, and racial or ethnic diversity.

“I think the personalized approach is growing – compared to 4 or 5 years ago, when social determinants and patient preferences weren’t really talked about,” he said. How payors incorporate these considerations varies widely, but larger practices are starting to talk to payors about taking on financial risk, and clinical pathways can help them control risk and cost. “It has to be a collaborative process with whomever you’re talking to. The movement will be successful to the degree we collaborate in a common direction.”
 

Complicated treatments

Ray Page, DO, PhD, FASCO, a medical oncologist and hematologist at the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Fort Worth, Tex., said his group has used clinical pathways, offered by Elsevier and originally developed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, since 2007. “It’s part of the culture of our practice, and a requirement to work here. Cancer medicine is becoming so complicated, no oncologist can humanly keep track of it all. You’ve got to have good tools,” he said.

“Part of the nuance of dealing with insurers is that we’ve tried to negotiate using our compliance with evidence-based clinical pathways.” Collaboration is the ultimate goal, Dr. Page said. “But that gets harder as health care becomes more corporatized and vertically integrated.”

Alan Balch, PhD, CEO of the National Patient Advocate Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that well-designed pathways offer a way to ensure that evidence-based cancer care is practiced, and that providers are presented with a short list of treatment options based on evidence-based guidelines like those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“But if you want to be consumer centric, reflecting the circumstances of the individual patient, you either have to make your pathway more sophisticated and nuanced in the choices it offers – or see it as just one tool in treatment decision-making, while allowing other, patient-centered processes by which the patient’s circumstances and preferences are considered.” Is there a name for that process? “It’s called shared decision-making,” Dr. Balch replied.

“I’m optimistic that oncology care is becoming more person centered, whether by pathways or other means,” he said. “How long that will take, and in what form, is another conversation. But there is greater awareness of the need.”

People are talking to each other more about pathways implementation, Dr. Zon added. Pathways uptake will probably never be 100%, and the large academic medical centers will continue to have their own ways of caring for the sickest of the sick outside of the pathways.

Dr. Zon wondered if there could be a more comprehensive or universal oncology pathway incorporating symptom control, triaging, preventive screening, supportive and palliative care, and the end of life, all of which have fairly standardized approaches. “At the congress, I proposed thinking about a different approach for the pathways model – one that is not only more patient centric, but incorporates social determinants of health and patient experience, reflecting different cultures and communities, combining these other approaches to be more comprehensive and supporting best approaches to cancer care while reducing total costs of care.”

The path to more effective use of clinical pathways in oncology practice lies in greater collaboration between the various sectors – oncology practices, payors, employers, pathways’ vendors, pharmaceutical manufacturers and patients – said Winston Wong, PharmD, president of W-Squared Group in Longboat Key, Fla., and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Pathways.

Dr. Wong presented findings from the journal’s annual Oncology Clinical Pathways Benchmarking Survey at the Oncology Clinical Pathways Congress, which was held in October. As fee for service gives way to performance-based and risk-bearing reimbursements, he said, “we are observing renewed interest in pathways implementation among a more diverse group of [health care providers].”

More survey respondents said they expected to implement pathways within the next 2 years than in past surveys. “I think it’s partly because payors are starting to delegate more care decisions back to oncology practices, making them more accountable for the care they provide,” Dr. Wong said.

The 2021 survey included 871 respondents, most of them direct care providers based in community practices. At 94%, most said they believed clinical pathways increased quality of care, 87% said they improved clinical outcomes, and 84% said they controlled costs.

Also presented at the meeting were preliminary findings of the JCP 2021 Care Pathways Working Group, which identified barriers to wider clinical pathways use. These include a fragmented health care system, minimal interoperability between systems, lack of integration into practice work flows, lack of reduction in administrative burden and lack of understanding by payers of the impact of social determinants of health.

Oncology clinical pathways are protocols and drug regimens for cancer care. They are used by oncology practices, academic medical centers, health systems, payors, and third-party vendors to address efficacy, safety, tolerability, and cost, but physicians have raised concerns about the administrative burden of working with pathways or pathways that emphasize cost-cutting at the expense of treatment choices or the flexibility to respond to unique patient circumstances.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology responded to member concerns about pathways in a 2016 Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology. The following year, ASCO issued Criteria for High-Quality Clinical Pathways, offering a mechanism for evaluating the quality of a pathway, which according to ASCO’s criteria should be expert driven, evidence based, patient focused, up to date, and comprehensive, with multiple stakeholder input.

“There’s uncertainty among providers as the health care system continues to evolve toward value-based care models,” said Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s vice president of care delivery. “There are a lot of challenges. Practices are at different points in their journey toward value-based care and how to reconcile their care delivery models with the alternate payment models.”

Robin T. Zon, MD, FACP, FASCO, a medical oncologist at Michiana Hematology Oncology in Mishawaka, Ind., and chair of ASCO’s Pathways Task Force, which has since disbanded, was asked if she thought integration of pathways into practice has improved in the 4 years since the task force completed its work. “We think so, but we don’t have the data to support that conclusion,” she replied. “We were concerned about how we could make life easier for clinicians having to deal with preauthorization and helping them with the administrative burdens. Our society is trying to point to the path forward.”
 

Social determinants come to the fore

Also widely discussed at the congress was the need for greater equity in health care and greater responsiveness to social determinants of health, Dr. Wong said. Disparities in care are common throughout chronic disease care, and social determinants are getting more attention with the growing emphasis on patient-centered care.

Patient preferences and circumstances come into play, for example, when the patient can’t afford a prescribed treatment, or if a recommended protocol of infusions for 4 or 5 days in a row conflicts with the patient’s need to keep working. “If you don’t have a caregiver readily able to take you to the doctor’s office, that impacts your choice of treatment,” Dr. Wong said. Other social factors include geography, life experience, tolerance for side effects, and racial or ethnic diversity.

“I think the personalized approach is growing – compared to 4 or 5 years ago, when social determinants and patient preferences weren’t really talked about,” he said. How payors incorporate these considerations varies widely, but larger practices are starting to talk to payors about taking on financial risk, and clinical pathways can help them control risk and cost. “It has to be a collaborative process with whomever you’re talking to. The movement will be successful to the degree we collaborate in a common direction.”
 

Complicated treatments

Ray Page, DO, PhD, FASCO, a medical oncologist and hematologist at the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Fort Worth, Tex., said his group has used clinical pathways, offered by Elsevier and originally developed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, since 2007. “It’s part of the culture of our practice, and a requirement to work here. Cancer medicine is becoming so complicated, no oncologist can humanly keep track of it all. You’ve got to have good tools,” he said.

“Part of the nuance of dealing with insurers is that we’ve tried to negotiate using our compliance with evidence-based clinical pathways.” Collaboration is the ultimate goal, Dr. Page said. “But that gets harder as health care becomes more corporatized and vertically integrated.”

Alan Balch, PhD, CEO of the National Patient Advocate Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that well-designed pathways offer a way to ensure that evidence-based cancer care is practiced, and that providers are presented with a short list of treatment options based on evidence-based guidelines like those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“But if you want to be consumer centric, reflecting the circumstances of the individual patient, you either have to make your pathway more sophisticated and nuanced in the choices it offers – or see it as just one tool in treatment decision-making, while allowing other, patient-centered processes by which the patient’s circumstances and preferences are considered.” Is there a name for that process? “It’s called shared decision-making,” Dr. Balch replied.

“I’m optimistic that oncology care is becoming more person centered, whether by pathways or other means,” he said. “How long that will take, and in what form, is another conversation. But there is greater awareness of the need.”

People are talking to each other more about pathways implementation, Dr. Zon added. Pathways uptake will probably never be 100%, and the large academic medical centers will continue to have their own ways of caring for the sickest of the sick outside of the pathways.

Dr. Zon wondered if there could be a more comprehensive or universal oncology pathway incorporating symptom control, triaging, preventive screening, supportive and palliative care, and the end of life, all of which have fairly standardized approaches. “At the congress, I proposed thinking about a different approach for the pathways model – one that is not only more patient centric, but incorporates social determinants of health and patient experience, reflecting different cultures and communities, combining these other approaches to be more comprehensive and supporting best approaches to cancer care while reducing total costs of care.”

The path to more effective use of clinical pathways in oncology practice lies in greater collaboration between the various sectors – oncology practices, payors, employers, pathways’ vendors, pharmaceutical manufacturers and patients – said Winston Wong, PharmD, president of W-Squared Group in Longboat Key, Fla., and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Pathways.

Dr. Wong presented findings from the journal’s annual Oncology Clinical Pathways Benchmarking Survey at the Oncology Clinical Pathways Congress, which was held in October. As fee for service gives way to performance-based and risk-bearing reimbursements, he said, “we are observing renewed interest in pathways implementation among a more diverse group of [health care providers].”

More survey respondents said they expected to implement pathways within the next 2 years than in past surveys. “I think it’s partly because payors are starting to delegate more care decisions back to oncology practices, making them more accountable for the care they provide,” Dr. Wong said.

The 2021 survey included 871 respondents, most of them direct care providers based in community practices. At 94%, most said they believed clinical pathways increased quality of care, 87% said they improved clinical outcomes, and 84% said they controlled costs.

Also presented at the meeting were preliminary findings of the JCP 2021 Care Pathways Working Group, which identified barriers to wider clinical pathways use. These include a fragmented health care system, minimal interoperability between systems, lack of integration into practice work flows, lack of reduction in administrative burden and lack of understanding by payers of the impact of social determinants of health.

Oncology clinical pathways are protocols and drug regimens for cancer care. They are used by oncology practices, academic medical centers, health systems, payors, and third-party vendors to address efficacy, safety, tolerability, and cost, but physicians have raised concerns about the administrative burden of working with pathways or pathways that emphasize cost-cutting at the expense of treatment choices or the flexibility to respond to unique patient circumstances.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology responded to member concerns about pathways in a 2016 Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology. The following year, ASCO issued Criteria for High-Quality Clinical Pathways, offering a mechanism for evaluating the quality of a pathway, which according to ASCO’s criteria should be expert driven, evidence based, patient focused, up to date, and comprehensive, with multiple stakeholder input.

“There’s uncertainty among providers as the health care system continues to evolve toward value-based care models,” said Stephen Grubbs, MD, ASCO’s vice president of care delivery. “There are a lot of challenges. Practices are at different points in their journey toward value-based care and how to reconcile their care delivery models with the alternate payment models.”

Robin T. Zon, MD, FACP, FASCO, a medical oncologist at Michiana Hematology Oncology in Mishawaka, Ind., and chair of ASCO’s Pathways Task Force, which has since disbanded, was asked if she thought integration of pathways into practice has improved in the 4 years since the task force completed its work. “We think so, but we don’t have the data to support that conclusion,” she replied. “We were concerned about how we could make life easier for clinicians having to deal with preauthorization and helping them with the administrative burdens. Our society is trying to point to the path forward.”
 

Social determinants come to the fore

Also widely discussed at the congress was the need for greater equity in health care and greater responsiveness to social determinants of health, Dr. Wong said. Disparities in care are common throughout chronic disease care, and social determinants are getting more attention with the growing emphasis on patient-centered care.

Patient preferences and circumstances come into play, for example, when the patient can’t afford a prescribed treatment, or if a recommended protocol of infusions for 4 or 5 days in a row conflicts with the patient’s need to keep working. “If you don’t have a caregiver readily able to take you to the doctor’s office, that impacts your choice of treatment,” Dr. Wong said. Other social factors include geography, life experience, tolerance for side effects, and racial or ethnic diversity.

“I think the personalized approach is growing – compared to 4 or 5 years ago, when social determinants and patient preferences weren’t really talked about,” he said. How payors incorporate these considerations varies widely, but larger practices are starting to talk to payors about taking on financial risk, and clinical pathways can help them control risk and cost. “It has to be a collaborative process with whomever you’re talking to. The movement will be successful to the degree we collaborate in a common direction.”
 

Complicated treatments

Ray Page, DO, PhD, FASCO, a medical oncologist and hematologist at the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders in Fort Worth, Tex., said his group has used clinical pathways, offered by Elsevier and originally developed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, since 2007. “It’s part of the culture of our practice, and a requirement to work here. Cancer medicine is becoming so complicated, no oncologist can humanly keep track of it all. You’ve got to have good tools,” he said.

“Part of the nuance of dealing with insurers is that we’ve tried to negotiate using our compliance with evidence-based clinical pathways.” Collaboration is the ultimate goal, Dr. Page said. “But that gets harder as health care becomes more corporatized and vertically integrated.”

Alan Balch, PhD, CEO of the National Patient Advocate Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that well-designed pathways offer a way to ensure that evidence-based cancer care is practiced, and that providers are presented with a short list of treatment options based on evidence-based guidelines like those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“But if you want to be consumer centric, reflecting the circumstances of the individual patient, you either have to make your pathway more sophisticated and nuanced in the choices it offers – or see it as just one tool in treatment decision-making, while allowing other, patient-centered processes by which the patient’s circumstances and preferences are considered.” Is there a name for that process? “It’s called shared decision-making,” Dr. Balch replied.

“I’m optimistic that oncology care is becoming more person centered, whether by pathways or other means,” he said. “How long that will take, and in what form, is another conversation. But there is greater awareness of the need.”

People are talking to each other more about pathways implementation, Dr. Zon added. Pathways uptake will probably never be 100%, and the large academic medical centers will continue to have their own ways of caring for the sickest of the sick outside of the pathways.

Dr. Zon wondered if there could be a more comprehensive or universal oncology pathway incorporating symptom control, triaging, preventive screening, supportive and palliative care, and the end of life, all of which have fairly standardized approaches. “At the congress, I proposed thinking about a different approach for the pathways model – one that is not only more patient centric, but incorporates social determinants of health and patient experience, reflecting different cultures and communities, combining these other approaches to be more comprehensive and supporting best approaches to cancer care while reducing total costs of care.”