Business of Medicine

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Among the potential uses envisioned for artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is decreasing provider burden by using the technology to help respond to patients’ questions submitted through portals.

Easing the burden on providers of responding to each question is a target ripe for solutions as during the COVID pandemic, such messages increased 157% from prepandemic levels, say authors of a paper published online in JAMA Network Open. Each additional message added 2.3 minutes to time spent on the electronic health record (EHR) per day.

Researchers at Stanford Health Care, led by Patricia Garcia, MD, with the department of medicine, conducted a 5-week, prospective, single-group quality improvement study from July 10 through August 13, 2023, at Stanford to test an AI response system.
 

Large Language Model Used

All attending physicians, advanced practice providers, clinic nurses, and clinical pharmacists from the divisions of primary care and gastroenterology and hepatology were enrolled in a pilot program that offered the option to answer patients’ questions with drafts that were generated by a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant large language model integrated into EHRs. Drafts were then reviewed by the provider.

The study primarily tested whether providers (162 were included) would use the AI-generated drafts. Secondary outcomes included whether using such a system saved time or improved the clinician experience.

Participants received survey emails before and after the pilot period and answered questions on areas including task load, EHR burden, usability, work exhaustion, burnout, and satisfaction.

Researchers found that the overall average utilization rate per clinician was 20% but there were significant between-group differences. For example, in gastroenterology and hepatology, nurses used the AI tool the most at 29% and physicians/APPs had a 24% usage rate, whereas clinical pharmacists had the highest use rate for primary care at 44% compared with physician use at 15%.
 

Burden Improved, But Didn’t Save Time

AI did not appear to save time but did improve task load scores and work exhaustion scores. The report states that there was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the prepilot and pilot periods. However, there were significant reductions in the physician task load score derivative (mean [SD], 61.31 [17.23] pre survey vs 47.26 [17.11] post survey; paired difference, −13.87; 95% CI, −17.38 to −9.50; P < .001) and work exhaustion scores decreased by a third (mean [SD], 1.95 [0.79] pre survey vs 1.62 [0.68] post survey; paired difference, −0.33; 95% CI, −0.50 to −0.17; P < .001)

The authors wrote that improvements in task load and emotional exhaustion scores suggest that generated replies have the potential to lessen cognitive burden and burnout. Though the AI tool didn’t save time, editing responses may be less cognitively taxing than writing responses for providers, the authors suggest.
 

Quality of AI Responses

Comments about AI response message voice and/or tone were the most common and had the highest absolute number of negative comments (10 positive, 2 neutral, and 14 negative). The most negative comments were about length (too long or too short) of the draft message (1 positive, 2 neutral, and 8 negative).

Comments on accuracy of the draft response were fairly even ­— 4 positive and 5 negative — but there were no adverse safety signals, the authors report.

The providers had high expectations about use and quality of the tool that “were either met or exceeded at the end of the pilot,” Dr. Garcia and coauthors write. “Given the evidence that burnout is associated with turnover, reductions in clinical activity, and quality, even a modest improvement may have a substantial impact.”

One coauthor reported grants from Google, Omada Health, and PredictaMed outside the submitted work. Another coauthor reported having a patent for Well-being Index Instruments and Mayo Leadership Impact Index, with royalties paid from Mayo Clinic, and receiving honoraria for presenting grand rounds, keynote lectures, and advising health care organizations on clinician well-being. No other disclosures were reported. 

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Most major cancer trial centers in the United States are located closer to populations with higher proportions of White, affluent individuals, a new study finds.

This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.

“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”

Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.

“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.

To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.

These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).

The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.

“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.

In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.

“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”

A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

Informing patients of a dire diagnosis — or even one that will require significant lifestyle changes — is never easy. But what’s even more challenging is when patients don’t accept their medical condition or a future that might include a difficult treatment protocol or even new medications or surgery.

“This is a challenging space to be in because this isn’t an exact science,” said Jack Jacoub, MD, medical director of MemorialCare Cancer Institute at Orange Coast Memorial in Fountain Valley, California. “There’s no formal training to deal with this — experience is your best teacher.”

Ultimately, helping a person reconceptualize what their future looks like is at the heart of every one of these conversations, said Sourav Sengupta, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. “As physicians, we’re charged with helping our patients navigate a difficult and challenging time in their life,” he told this news organization.

“It’s not infrequent that patients are struggling to rethink what it will be like to be a person with an illness that might be chronic and how this will change their life,” he said.

And because denial is commonly the initial way a patient might cope with absorbing news that’s hard to hear, you’ll need to be extremely patient and empathetic.

“The goal is to build trust with this person, including trust in you, the hospital itself, and the entire team treating the patient,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“A diagnosis, especially in my field of oncology, can be scary. Spending time explaining their prognosis is very important. This can’t be a rushed scenario.”

More advice on helping patients who are in denial about their medical condition:
 

Make Sure They Understand What’s Going on

In cardiology, it’s common for patients to be hospitalized when they first learn that they have a disease they must manage for the rest of their life, said Stephanie Saucier, MD, a noninvasive cardiologist and codirector of the Women’s Heart Wellness Program at Hartford Healthcare’s Heart and Vascular Institute.

“Especially after someone has had a heart attack, a stroke, or they had bypass or stents placed, I like to see what their understanding of the disease is,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them, ‘What do you understand about what happened to you’. It can get confusing when you’re in the hospital and are told a lot of information in a short period of time.”
 

Share the Data

If a patient remains resistant to the news of a diagnosis, sharing test results can be beneficial. “I’ll often say, ‘here are the scans; this is the path report; this is the bloodwork; this is your biopsy report; these are the things we have’,” Dr. Jacoub said.

“Yes, this is clinical, but it helps to communicate the information you have and do it with data. For example, I might add, ‘Would you like to see some of the things [results, scans, tests] we’re talking about today?’ This also helps establish trust.”
 

Help Them Wrap Their Mind Around a Lifelong Condition

It’s often challenging for patients to accept that what they think is a one-time health issue will affect them for a lifetime. “I use juvenile diabetes as a way to explain this,” Dr. Saucier said. “I ask them what they would do if, say, their child was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes.”

Of course, patients agree that they wouldn’t give a child insulin for only a brief period. They understand that the condition must be treated in the long term. This kind of analogy can help patients understand that they, too, have a disorder requiring lifelong treatment.
 

Be Ready to Respond

Dr. Sengupta says that it’s important to be prepared with an answer if your patient is challenging or suggests that the diagnosis is fake or that you don’t have their best interests in mind.

“It’s understandable that patients might feel frustrated and upset,” he said. “It’s challenging when somehow a patient doesn’t assume my best intent.”

They might say something like, “You’re trying to make more money” or “you’re a shill for a pharma company.” In that case, you must listen. Patiently explain, “I’m your doctor; I work for you; I’m most interested in you feeling healthy and well.”

Occasionally, you’ll need a thick skin when it comes to inaccurate, controversial, or conspiratorial conversations with patients.
 

Acknowledge Differences

News of an illness may clash with a person’s take on the world. “A cancer diagnosis, for example, may clash with religious beliefs or faith-based ideology about the healthcare system,” said Aaron Fletcher, MD, a board-certified otolaryngologist specializing in head and neck surgery at the Georgia Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Facial Plastic Surgery in Atlanta, Georgia.

“If you have a patient who is coming to you with these beliefs, you need to have a lot of empathy, patience, and good communication skills. It’s up to you to break through the initial doubt and do your best to explain things in layman’s terms.”
 

Find Mutual Ground

If your patient still denies their health issues, try to find one thing you can agree on regarding a long-term game plan. “I’ll say, ‘Can we at least agree to discuss this with other family members or people who care about you’?” Dr. Jacoub said.

“I always tell patients that loved ones are welcome to call me so long as they [the patient] give permission. Sometimes, this is all that it takes to get them to accept their health situation.”
 

Seven Ways to Cope With Diagnosis  Denial

This news organization asked David Cutler, MD, a board-certified family medicine physician at Providence Saint John›s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, for tips in helping patients who are having a challenging time accepting their condition:

• Listen Actively. Allow the patient to express their feelings and concerns without judgment. Active listening can help them feel heard and understood, which may open the door to discussing their condition more openly.
• Provide Information. Offer factual information about their medical condition, treatment options, and the potential consequences of denial. Provide resources such as pamphlets, websites, or books that they can review at their own pace.
• Encourage Professional Help. You may want to suggest that your patient seek professional help from a therapist, counselor, or support group. A mental health professional can assist patients in processing their emotions and addressing their denial constructively.
• Involve Trusted Individuals. Enlist the support of trusted friends, family members, or healthcare professionals who can help reinforce the importance of facing their medical condition.
• Respect Autonomy. While it’s essential to encourage the person to accept their diagnosis, ultimately, the decision to get treatment lies with them. Respect their autonomy and avoid pushing them too hard, which could lead to resistance or further denial.
• Be Patient and Persistent. Overcoming denial is often a gradual process. Be patient and persistent in supporting the person, even if progress seems slow.
• Set Boundaries. It’s essential to set boundaries to protect your well-being. While you can offer support and encouragement, you cannot force someone to accept their medical condition. Recognize when your efforts are not being productive and take care of yourself in the process.

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

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

How should we define success in cancer policy — what should the endpoint be?

It’s debatable. Is it fewer cancer deaths? Perhaps improved access to therapies or a reduction in disparities?

One thing I know with certainty: The number of new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not and should not be our primary endpoint in and of itself.

I’ll go a step further: It is not even a surrogate marker for success. The number of newly approved drugs is a meaningless metric. Here’s why.

Unfortunately, a new drug approval does not necessarily mean improved patient outcomes. In fact, the majority of cancer drugs approved these days improve neither survival nor quality of life. Our previous work has shown better mortality outcomes in other high-income countries that have not approved or do not fund several cancer drugs that the FDA has approved.

Even if a drug has a meaningful benefit, at an average cost of more than $250,000 per year, if a new drug cannot reach patients because of access or cost issues, it’s meaningless.

However, regulators and media celebrate the number (and speed) of drug approvals every year as if it were a marker of success in and of itself. But approving more drugs should not be the goal; improving outcomes should. The FDA’s current approach is akin to a university celebrating its graduation rate by lowering the requirements to pass.

When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine ‘ending cancer as we know it’ is premature and even embarrassing.

This is exactly what the FDA has been doing with our regulatory standards for drug approval. They have gradually lowered the requirements for approval from two randomized trials to one randomized trial, then further to one randomized trial with a surrogate endpoint. In many instances, they have gone even further, demanding merely single-arm trials. They’ve also gone from requiring overall survival benefits to celebrating nondetrimental effects on overall survival. It’s no wonder that we approve more drugs today than we did in the past — the bar for approval is pretty low nowadays.

In 2019, our lab found an interesting phenomenon: The number of approvals based on surrogate endpoints has been increasing while the number of accelerated approvals has been decreasing. This made no sense at first, because you’d think surrogate-based approvals and accelerated approvals would be collinear. However, we realized that the recent approvals based on surrogate endpoints were regular approvals instead of accelerated approvals, which explained the phenomenon. Not only is the FDA approving more drugs on the basis of lower levels of evidence, but the agency is also offering regular instead of accelerated approval, thereby removing the safety net of a confirmatory trial.

Nearly everybody sees this as a cause for celebration. Pharma celebrates record profits, regulators celebrate record numbers of drug approvals, insurance companies celebrate because they can pass these costs on as insurance premiums and make even more money, and physicians and patients celebrate access to the shiniest, sexiest new cancer drug.

Everybody is happy in this system. The only problem is that patient outcomes don’t improve, resources are taken away from other priorities, and society suffers a net harm.

When you contrast this celebration with the reality on the ground, the difference is stark and sobering. In our clinics, patients lack access to even old chemotherapeutic drugs that are already generic and cheap but make a meaningful difference in patient outcomes. Citing a current lack of incentives, several generic cancer drug manufacturers have stopped making these drugs; the US supply now relies heavily on importing them from emerging economies such as India. When US patients lack access to cisplatin and carboplatin, any talk of a Moonshot or precision medicine “ending cancer as we know it” is premature and even embarrassing.

5-Fluorouracil, methotrexate, and the platinums are backbones of cancer treatment. Cisplatin and carboplatin are not drugs we use with the hope of improving survival by a couple of months; these drugs are the difference between life and death for patients with testicular and ovarian cancers. In a survey of 948 global oncologists, these were considered among the most essential cancer drugs by oncologists in high-income and low- and middle-income countries alike. Although oncologists in low- and middle-income countries sometimes argue that even these cheap generic drugs may be unaffordable to their patients, they usually remain available; access is a function of both availability and affordability. However, the shortage situation in the US is unique in that availability — rather than affordability — is impacting access.

Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox.

Generic drugs are cheap, and any industrialized country can manufacture them. This is why so few companies actually do so; the profit margins are low and companies have little incentive to produce them, despite their benefit. Meanwhile, the FDA is approving and offering access to new shiny molecules that cost more than $15,000 per month yet offer less than a month of progression-free survival benefit and no overall survival benefit (see margetuximab in breast cancer). We have a literal fatal attraction to everything new and shiny.

This is a clear misalignment of priorities in US cancer drug policy. Our profit-over-patients policy has landed us in a terrible paradox: If a drug is cheap and meaningful, it won’t be available, but if it is marginal and expensive, we will do everything to ensure patients can get it. It’s no wonder that patients on Medicaid are disproportionately affected by these drug shortages. Unless all patients have easy access to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, it is frankly embarrassing to celebrate the number of new cancer drugs approved each year.

We all have a responsibility in this — policymakers and lawmakers, regulators and payers, manufacturers and distributors, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other oncology societies, and physicians and patients. This is where our advocacy work should focus. The primary endpoint of our cancer policy should not be how many new treatments we can approve or how many expensive drugs a rich person with the best insurance can get at a leading cancer center. The true measure of our civilization is how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Dr. Gyawali has disclosed the following relevant financial relationship: Received consulting fees from Vivio Health.

Dr. Gyawali is an associate professor in the Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences and a scientist in the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and is also affiliated faculty at the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law in the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. His clinical and research interests revolve around cancer policy, global oncology, evidence-based oncology, financial toxicities of cancer treatment, clinical trial methods, and supportive care. He tweets at @oncology_bg.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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.

The following scenario was discussed during a forum at a meeting recently:

Two employees managing the front desk are clock watchers, always the first to leave at 11:59 a.m. for lunch and at 4:59 p.m. for the end of the day no matter what is happening. This leaves the other employees stuck with their work.

I have seen clock watching often enough to know that it is widely practiced, and widely reviled by coworkers and managers alike. Generally, clock watchers — sometimes referred to in modern parlance as “quiet quitters” — radiate a palpable sense of “I don’t want to be here.”

Physicians typically can’t identify with clock watching behavior, because we learned early on that patient-care tasks must be pursued to completion; if that involves working past the usual “quitting time,” so be it. So your first task in dealing with this problem is to determine its cause. The clock watcher label may be unfair. There may be legitimate reasons for certain employees to leave work at precisely 4:59 every day. Perhaps they must pick up children, or they have a second job to get to. The label usually comes from a pattern of consistent, repeated behavior. And if more than one employee is exhibiting the same behavior in the same office, the likelihood of a valid explanation decreases proportionally.

Utamaru Kido/Moment/Getty Images

A common cause of clock watching is a lack of employees’ commitment to their jobs. They don’t see the point in putting in extra effort, so they run out the door as soon as possible. There are many reasons why this might be the case. For example, the workload in your office may be too large to be accomplished in the time available by the number of people you employ. The solution might be to simply hire additional personnel.

Another common cause is a lack of communication between physicians, managers, and lower-level employees. If staffers are raising concerns or potential solutions, and management is not listening to their opinions or ideas, they will stop offering them. Alternatively, other staff members may not be pulling their weight. When there is a large imbalance in the contribution of team members, the higher performers will stop trying.

Over my 40 plus years in practice, I have had my share of clock watchers. I try the best I can not to let employees’ time commitment practices impact my valuation of their work. I always attempt to focus on quality and productivity. It isn’t easy, but I always try to address the issues behind clock watching behavior. As such, I can’t recall ever having to fire anyone for clock watching. Here are some of the strategies that have worked for me over the years:

1. Set clear expectations. Clearly communicate job responsibilities and expectations regarding time management and patient care. Ensure that all staff understand the importance of dedicating the necessary time to each patient, regardless of the time of day.

2. Foster a patient-centered culture. Cultivate a work environment that prioritizes patient care above all. This can help shift the focus from watching the clock to ensuring high-quality patient care.

3. Provide adequate breaks. Ensure that staff schedules include sufficient breaks. Overworked staff are more likely to watch the clock. Adequate rest periods can help alleviate this issue.

4. Offer flexibility where possible. If feasible, offer some degree of scheduling flexibility. This can help staff manage their personal time more effectively, potentially reducing the tendency to watch the clock.

5. Implement time management training. Offer training sessions focused on time management and efficiency. This can help staff manage their duties more effectively, reducing the need to constantly check the time.

6. Encourage open communication. Create an environment where staff feel comfortable discussing their concerns, including issues related to workload and time management. This can help identify and address specific factors contributing to clock watching.

7. Monitor and provide feedback. Regularly monitor staff performance and provide constructive feedback. If clock watching is observed, discuss it directly with the employee, focusing on the impact on patient care and the work environment.

8. Recognize and reward. Acknowledge and reward staff who consistently provide high-quality care and demonstrate effective time management. Recognition can motivate others to adjust their behavior.

9. Evaluate workloads. Regularly assess staff workloads to ensure they are manageable. Overburdened employees are more likely to engage in clock watching.

10. Lead by example. Management should model the behavior they wish to see in their staff. Demonstrating a commitment to patient care and effective time management can set a positive example.

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.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.

This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.

A Common and Costly Problem

Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.

Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.

“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.

In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.

While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.

This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.

A Common and Costly Problem

Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.

Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.

“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.

In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.

While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.

This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.

A Common and Costly Problem

Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.

Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.

“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.

In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

Recently, Acadia Pharmaceuticals announced it was stopping trials on Nuplazid for indications outside of Parkinson’s disease psychosis.

I was impressed with what I saw in my office. Although I know there’s some controversy over the drug, the majority of studies do show efficacy, and in my little practice I clearly noticed improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who’d previously failed the more standard agents (note - I have no financial affiliation with Acadia Pharmaceuticals).

So, as a lay-neurologist, I expected the drug to work for other kinds of psychosis, particularly Alzheimer’s disease. All of us in practice know how much we need new options for that.

But when the clinical trials came, the drug didn’t work. It didn’t work for schizophrenia, either, Finally, Acadia threw in the towel and gave up.

I have no idea what happened. I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. On paper, I’d have thought it would work for Alzheimer’s psychosis, but in the real world it didn’t.

Is psychosis between the two disorders that different, with different neurotransmitter causes? Are the benefits in my patients with Parkinson’s disease really just from my own selection bias? Or is there just a lot we still don’t know?

Medicine, unfortunately, is littered with ideas that should have worked, but either didn’t, or at least aren’t as good as we thought they should have been. Look at the graveyard full of amyloid-targeting drugs. Yeah, I know Leqembi is out there, and donanemab is in the wings, but are they anywhere near as good as we thought they’d be? Not at all.

At the same time, we’ve been waiting for the BTK drugs (not to be confused with a Korean pop band) for multiple sclerosis. They sounded like they were the Next Big Thing.

They may be, but recent data on one of them, evobrutinib, was less than encouraging. Of course, that shouldn’t extrapolate to the group as a whole, but it does leave you wondering why.

Medicine is always improving, but it’s also still a trial-and-error process. Just because something should work doesn’t mean it will, and it may be years before we know why.

It’s just a reminder that, here in 2024, we still have a lot to learn.
 

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

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of clinically active rheumatology providers in the United States grew more than 20% from 2009 to 2019, according to a new analysis.

The number of advanced practice providers (APPs) in rheumatology more than doubled during that same time. However, these numerical increases are not enough to meet the projected demand in care, the authors reported.

University of Alabama Medical Center

“Even though we found growth, and if that same growth continued, we’d still be well below the projected needs for the overall aging population of the United States,” lead author Melissa Mannion, MD, MSPH, a pediatric rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

In a 2015 workforce study by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), researchers projected that the supply of rheumatologists would decrease by 25% from 2015 to 2030, with an estimated shortage of over 4000 clinical full-time equivalent (cFTE) rheumatology providers.

While the previous study’s findings seem to contrast with this newest analysis, Dr. Dr. Mannion said the findings are complementary, with both studies using different data sources.

The newest findings were published online on February 24 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Leveraging Medicare Data

The ACR study estimated the adult rheumatology workforce and cFTEs using both primary and secondary sources, including published data from the American Medical Association and other professional societies, as well as electronic surveys of ACR members and rheumatology fellows in training.

By contrast, this newest study identified rheumatology providers using Medicare administrative data from 2006 to 2020, supplemented by national provider identifier taxonomy codes. Rheumatologists were considered “clinically active” if they provided care for at least five patients in 1 year. To account for rheumatology fellows, who can be categorized as internal medicine physicians, researchers also included internists who prescribed biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to more than 10 patients a year.

The count also included APPs, both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), who were attached to practices with only rheumatologists, internists, or one other specialty. Like physicians, APPs were included in the count if they prescribed more than 10 patients biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs in a calendar year and billed at least five patients with a rheumatic condition per year.

Researchers also estimated the number of cFTEs for 2019, using a variety of assumptions to generate an upper and lower range.

Different Numbers, Complementary Conclusions

For the 2019 calendar year, researchers counted 5667 clinically active rheumatologists and 379 NPs/PAs.

This represented a 23% increase in rheumatologists and a 141% increase in the number of APPs in the rheumatology workforce from 2009. The active rheumatology workforce increased by about 100 providers per year over the study period, although growth flattened off in more recent years.

The estimated cFTEs for 2019 ranged from 3457 to 5396, which are “comparable” to the projected 2020 cFTE estimates made in the ACR 2015 workforce study: 3888 to 5777 cFTEs.

American College of Rheumatology

Daniel Battafarano, DO, chair of the ACR Workforce Solutions Committee, agreed with Dr. Mannion that these findings complement each other, telling a similar story “but with different numbers,” he told this news organization. Dr. Battafarano, a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, led the ACR workforce study.

“Both studies project estimates of rheumatology providers and workforce trends, but neither study can claim accurate numbers of rheumatology providers due to the true limitation of either workforce study model,” he said.

The ACR study began with a higher count of rheumatologists, estimating 6013 practicing providers in 2015, while Dr. Mannion’s team calculated 5474 providers for the same year. The ACR study projected that provider numbers would fall to 5886 by 2020, which was higher than the 2019 count in this most recent study.

Dr. Battafarano noted that the studies also dealt with different time frames: While the ACR study used 2015 data to project trends in 5-year increments, this most recent study looked trends in the previous decade.

“We found an increase over time, although toward the end of our study — from 2019 to 2020 — we did have a drop off in number of providers, so maybe we are finding the beginning of what [the ACR researchers] anticipated, or maybe that will be corrected in the future,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “I think that our estimates really coordinate with what they found just using a different data source.”

Geographic Disparities and Solutions

The new study also highlighted the scarcity of rheumatology providers in rural counties, which was also an important take away from the 2015 ACR study. In the new analysis, researchers found that 95% of rheumatology practices were in urban settings, which did not change over the study period. Most counties in the United States had fewer than 30 rheumatologists per 1 million adults, with 93% of rural counties having zero adult rheumatologists. In comparison, 48% of urban counties had no adult rheumatologists.

“There’s not enough people, and they’re in very specific locations,” Dr. Dr. Mannion said. “Both things make it harder for people to get care.”

Dr. Battafarano noted that leveraging APPs would be key to increasing patient access to care moving forward — a resource that has more than doubled in the past decade, according to Dr. Dr. Mannion’s analysis.

“Recruiting a significant number of APPs into rheumatology practice should be a primary goal to increase the rheumatology workforce,” he said. Other potential solutions, he added, include employing telemedicine and educating primary care providers on rheumatic disease to help them comanage these conditions with rheumatologists.

This study was partially funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Mannion was supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Norman B. Gaylis, MD Clinical Research Award, paid to her institution. Dr. Battafarano had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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

In 2019, we interviewed Andrea Prince, MD, who was completing her internship in the Inuit village of Puvirnituq, a town of 2000 inhabitants located in Nunavik, in the Canadian Far North. Five years later, still in her position, what perspective does she have on her practice? Have the challenges of practicing medicine in a remote region within the Inuit community affected her vocation? Would she recommend this experience to young doctors?

Question: What position do you currently hold?

Dr. Prince: I am a full-time general practitioner at Puvirnituq Hospital. My responsibilities range from following up on hospitalized patients to those seen in outpatient clinics for chronic illnesses. Within our medical team, I receive patients in the emergency department (day and night shifts), and I travel to smaller dispensaries nearby, especially to the village of Akulivik. So, it’s quite a varied practice.

More recently, I have been involved in remote continuing medical education projects in collaboration with specialists based in Montreal. In this context, we are increasingly trying to collaborate with doctors from other indigenous communities, such as the Grand Council of the Cree, because our practices are quite similar.



Q: What is the patient volume you see?

Dr. Prince: We see approximately 20-30 patients per day in the clinic, plus about 10 by appointment, and dozens of calls from dispensaries, in addition to patients transferred from other villages. There are four daytime doctors (one at night) and about 15 nurses stationed full-time at Puvirnituq Hospital.

Our practice relies heavily on collaboration with the nursing team, which has an expanded role — they can manage certain patients according to the treatment plan established by the doctor and prescribe treatments (eg, antibiotics for uncomplicated otitis).



Q: Access to care in these isolated regions is considered difficult. Have you observed any improvement in the situation over the past 5 years? What about new material and human resources?

Dr. Prince: For the past year, we have had a Starlink internet connection at the hospital, which facilitates telemedicine exchanges with specialists; we can now send data and medical images to Montreal to obtain expertise much more easily. Previously, everything was done by phone or with significant delays. We do not yet have a cellular network, and all records are currently in paper format.

But the challenges remain numerous. Progress is very slow. Like everywhere in the country, we are experiencing a shortage of staff, particularly an insufficient number of nurses. But the impact is even more dramatic in these isolated territories. We have had to close dispensaries on the coast due to a lack of personnel and only offer emergency services. However, patients have no other options; they cannot drive to another hospital. In Nunavik, the road network is practically nonexistent, and travel to other regions is by plane (about a 2.5-hour medical evacuation trip).

So, sometimes, patients do not seek care in time, and when we finally see them, unfortunately, the issue can be quite advanced.



Q: What are the most pressing logistical needs?

Dr. Prince: We still do not have a scanner in the Far North. This has a significant impact on mortality, especially in the case of accidents and trauma, which are very common in these regions. “Residents of Nunavik are four times more likely to suffer trauma than the rest of Quebec’s population and 40 times more likely to die from it,” as recently reported in La Presse.

There has also been much discussion about cancer mortality, with a risk for death about 70% higher following a lung cancer diagnosis (reported by Medscape Medical News). We do not have a mammogram machine to diagnose breast cancer. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, equipped diagnostic teams sometimes traveled to the region, but this is no longer the case. Today, a patient needing a mammogram will have to travel to Montreal. The same goes for colonoscopies, but visits are becoming less frequent. Therefore, campaigns to screen for certain common types of cancer are practically nonexistent.

As for urgent surgeries (appendicitis, cesarean sections, trauma, etc.), patients must be transferred to Montreal by medical evacuation. We have a visiting surgeon twice a year.



Q: What improvement strategies do you foresee despite the lack of resources?

Dr. Prince: The saying “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense in such remote regions under extreme conditions (it is impossible to fly a medevac when it is too windy or during a snowstorm!). That’s why my colleagues and I believe that prevention should be the top priority in terms of healthcare intervention. It may seem obvious, but nothing is simple in the Far North.



Q: In which areas should prevention campaigns be prioritized in your opinion?

Dr. Prince: An example is wearing helmets. Practically no one wears this type of protection in the Far North. They use all-terrain vehicles that are dangerous and for which helmet use is crucial. But they are simply not available in stores. So, communication is difficult: We tell people, “you need a helmet for the ATV, another for the bike, for the snowmobile, for playing hockey, etc.” when it is difficult to obtain one. With traumatologists in Montreal, we had a project to create multifunctional helmets for children — to protect them but also to develop a culture of helmet use, which is not common practice in the community — but these are projects that take a lot of time and are more complex than they seem.

Villages still do not have running water. Therefore, it is difficult to give recommendations to patients as they live in sanitary conditions that are unseen elsewhere in Canada. Without clean water, we cannot ensure that wound care is done properly. Not to mention the occurrence of hepatitis A epidemics, like the one we had to face.

Residents also grapple with significant alcohol and smoking problems, but there is no detox center or dedicated psychological help on site. To follow a detox program, patients would have to leave, move away from their families, and that can be psychologically very destabilizing. I try, in my practice, to talk to my patients about this, especially pregnant women — because many continue to smoke or drink during their pregnancy — but we need more resources.



Q: What about women’s health in this region?

Dr. Prince: We are fortunate to have a team of midwives, several of whom are Inuit, who are of great help in accessing contraception, performing cervical cancer screening tests, etc. But some patients with high-risk pregnancies who should be transferred to Montreal refuse to give birth away from their families. Again, if we had the means to allow high-risk women — or those for whom continuous monitoring or a cesarean section may be necessary — to give birth here safely, it would be a big step. As for abortion, it is feasible but remains a very taboo subject in the community.

Regarding violence against women, I have not observed any particularly encouraging developments in the past 5 years, but recently, we met with the mayor about this, hoping that concrete actions will be taken to help victims of violence.
 

Q: What is the predominant feeling in your daily life in a situation that is slow to evolve?

Dr. Prince: I remain hopeful for my patients. We must continue to fight! Initiatives must also come from the communities themselves; they must be involved in developing solutions. Because patients, too, need to have hope. They have the right to be cared for like other inhabitants of Canada.

On my part, I try to find a balance between feeling good about my caregiving profession and not burning out professionally. But burnout is a subject that concerns many doctors around the world and is increasingly being discussed. We should all have psychological support when entering medicine!



Q: Would you recommend colleagues to come and work in the Far North? What would you tell them?

Dr. Prince: I would tell them they will have no regrets! Yes, it’s difficult, but it’s a unique type of practice and very rewarding on a human level.

Professionally, it is a general practice that is no longer seen in the city today. The spectrum is very broad, ranging from neonatology to geriatrics, from the simplest to the most complex. It’s very stimulating. Diagnostically, practice is also very different from what is done in the metropolis. Without a scanner, you really have to question and investigate to evaluate whether a patient should be evacuated by plane to Montreal or not. It’s not trivial. Decisions must be made judiciously and quickly.

The human experience is also unique. Inuit communities are little known, and the aspects relayed in the media are often negative due to their increased risk for addiction. However, they are cheerful and very warm people, with an extraordinary culture. I have learned a lot from them, including reconsidering the notion of time, reviewing my priorities, and approaching life one day at a time.

I am very grateful to them for accepting me. I am sometimes even greeted with a “Welcome home!” when I return from vacation...Being told that in Nunavik, I am also “at home,” touches me immensely. I have seen children grow up, adolescents become adults. A bond of trust has developed.

Of course, all of this comes with sacrifices like being away from family and loved ones. We miss birthdays, weddings, etc. But without hesitation, it’s worth it!



Q: What are the next steps in your career in Nunavik? Will you stay for a long time?

Dr. Prince: I take it one day at a time, especially since I am about to take maternity leave very soon. But if a full-time return to Nunavik is difficult with a newborn, I know that the Nunavummiuts [inhabitants of Nunavik] will always be part of my life and my practice.

I want to remain involved with these communities, whether on-site (by practicing there a few months a year) or in Montreal where many patients are transferred. Coming to be treated in a big city (Montreal, 1.7M inhabitants), in very large hospitals, can be very stressful for them. They express themselves much less verbally than Westerners, so we must know how to listen to them, dedicate the necessary time to them, consider their culture and beliefs. I would like to be the familiar face they will encounter when they are cared for away from home. It’s a bond I want to preserve.

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