Business of Medicine

Will the new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacy software be safe and effective? That was the topic when David Case, the VA Deputy Inspector General, spoke in the US House of Representatives Veterans Affairs Committee technology modernization subcommittee hearing on February 15.

Questions like that have dogged the project since 2018, when the VA began rolling out the Oracle Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system as the successor to ViSTA.

The Oracle system has been beset by one glitch after another since its arrival. And in that time, Case said, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been engaging with VA employees at sites in Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, and other locations where the modernization program has been piloted.

The most recent OIG investigation of pharmacy-related patient safety issues began with a review of an allegation of a prescription backlog at Columbus, Ohio, where the system went live on April 30, 2022. The OIG found that facility leaders took “timely and sustainable steps” to manage that issue. However, other unresolved patient safety issues came to light, such as medication inaccuracies, inaccurate medication data, and insufficient staffing. The OIG also found staff were creating “numerous work arounds” to provide patient care, and that the volume of staff educational materials for pharmacy-related functions was “overwhelming.”

Those problems were just the latest in a long queue. In May 2021, after the first VA deployment of the new EHR at the Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington, a pharmacy patient safety team under the VA National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) also had identified patient safety issues and “multiple” concerns regarding the system’s usability. For example, updates to a patient’s active medication list were not routinely reflected at the patient’s next appointment. Despite knowing about such challenges, Case noted in his report, VA leaders deployed the new EHR at 4 more VA medical centers.

Cerner/ViSTA Communication

One major cause of the current problems is the way the systems “talk” to each other. EHR information is communicated between VHA facilities through channels that include the Joint Longitudinal Viewer (JLV) and the Health Data Repository, which stores patient-specific clinical information from both the legacy and the new EHR systems. The JLV application allows clinicians to access a read only version of a patient’s EHR from both systems.

Every medication used in VHA has a VA Unique Identifier (VUID). When a patient is prescribed a medication at a new EHR site, that medication’s VUID is sent to the Health Data Repository. If that patient seeks care from a legacy health care practitioner (HCP), and that HCP enters a medication order, a software interface accesses the VUID from the Health Data Repository to verify that the medication being prescribed is safe and compatible with the medications and allergies previously documented in the patient’s record.

However, on March 31, 2023, staff from a ViSTA site found an incorrect medication order when prescribing a new medication to a patient who had received care and medications at a new EHR site. This in turn led to the discovery that an error in Oracle software coding had resulted in the “widespread transmission” of incorrect VUIDs from new EHR sites to legacy EHR sites, the OIG found. VA leaders and HCPs were notified of the potential clinical impact and were given specific instructions on how to mitigate the issue. They were asked to “please share widely.”

On top of that, days later, patient safety managers across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were told that drug-to-drug interactions, duplicate medication orders, and allergy checks were not functioning as expected, and they too were provided with remedial actions.

Oracle applied a successful software patch on in April 2023, to ensure accurate VUIDs were attached to all mail order pharmacy–processed prescriptions from that date forward. However, the OIG learned the incorrect VUIDs sent from new EHR sites and stored in the Health Data Repository from as far back as October 2020 had not been corrected. Case told the subcommittee that on November 29, 2023, the VHA Pharmacy Council reported withdrawing a request for Oracle to send corrected medication VUID data to the Health Data Repository, on the presumption that remaining inaccurate VUIDs would expire in early April 2024, and the data would be corrected at that time.

The OIG is concerned, Case said, that patient medication data remains inaccurate almost a year after VA learned of the issue. The mail order pharmacy-related data generated from approximately 120,000 patients served by new EHR sites are still incorrect. These patients face an ongoing risk of an adverse medication-related event if they receive care and medications from a VA medical center using the legacy EHR system.

The OIG also learned of other problems associated with transmission of medication and allergy information, which could have consequences such as:

• Patient medications being discontinued or stopped by new HCPs using Cerner that appear in ViSTA as active and current prescriptions;
• Allergy-warning messages not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong medication;
• Duplicate medication order checks not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong drug;
• Patient active medication lists having incomplete or inaccurate information, such as missing prescriptions, duplicate prescriptions, or incorrect medication order statuses.

The OIG warned VHA employees about the risks, although it wasn’t possible to determine who might actually be at risk. A VHA leader told the OIG that all patients who have been prescribed any medications or have medication allergies documented at a at a Cerner site are at risk. That could mean as many as 250,000 patients: As of September 2023, approximately 190,000 patients had a medication prescribed and 126,000 had an allergy documented at a new EHR site.

Case Example

Not surprisingly, “the OIG is not confident in [EHRM-Integration Office] leaders’ oversight and control of the new systems’ Health Data Repository interface programming,” Case said. He cited the case of a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury with adrenal insufficiency. Four days prior to admission, a ViSTA site pharmacist used the EHR to perform a medication reconciliation for the patient. The data available did not include the patient’s most recent prednisone prescription, which had been ordered by an HCP at a facility using Cerner.

A nurse practitioner performed another reconciliation when the patient was admitted to the residential program, but the patient was unsure of all their medications. Because the most recent prednisone prescription was not visible in ViSTA, the prednisone appeared to have been completed at least 3 months prior to admission and was therefore not prescribed in the admission medication orders.

Five days into the residential program, the patient began exhibiting unusual behaviors associated with the lack of prednisone. The patient realized they needed more prednisone, but the nurse explained there was no prednisone on the patient’s medication list. Eventually, the patient found the active prednisone order on their personal cell phone and was transferred to a local emergency department for care.

Work Arounds

The VHA’s efforts to forestall or mitigate system errors have in some cases had a cascade effect. For example, HCPs must essentially back up what the automated software is intended to do, with “complex, time-consuming” multistep manual safety checks when prescribing new medications for patients previously cared for at a Cerner site. The OIG is concerned that this increased vigilance is “unsustainable” by pharmacists and frontline staff and could lead to burnout and medication-related patient safety events. After the new EHR launched, the OIG found, burnout symptoms for pharmacy staff increased. Nonetheless, Case told the committee, OIG staff “have observed [employees’] unwavering commitment to prioritizing the care of patients while mitigating implementation challenges.”

EHR-related workload burdens have necessitated other adjustments. Columbus, for instance, hired 9 full-time clinical pharmacists—a 62% staffing increase—to help reduce the backlog. Pharmacy leaders created approximately 29 additional work-arounds to support pharmacy staff and prevent delays. Facility pharmacy leaders also developed approximately 25 educational materials, such as tip sheets, reference guides, and job aids. The OIG’s concern—apart from the overwhelming amount of information for staff to implement—is that such prophylactic measures may in fact give rise to inconsistent practices, which increase risks to patient safety.

Committed to Working With the VA

Mike Sicilia, executive vice president of Oracle Corporation, told lawmakers in the hearing, “After the initial deployments, it became clear that the pharmacy system needed to be enhanced to better meet VA’s needs. To that end, in August 2022, shortly after Oracle completed its acquisition of Cerner, VA contracted with us for seven enhancements that overall would adapt the pharmacy system to a more bidirectional system between VA providers placing prescription orders and VA pharmacists fulfilling and dispensing them.” Those enhancements are all live for VA providers and pharmacists to use now, he said, except for one that is undergoing additional testing.

He added, “As with any healthcare technology system, there is a need for continuous improvements but that does not mean the system is not safe and effective in its current state. Oracle is committed to working with VA … throughout the reset period to identify workflows and other items that can be simplified or streamlined to improve the overall user and pharmacy experience.”

Standardizing workflows and ensuring training and communications to pharmacists about the latest updates will discourage use of work-arounds, Sicilia said, and “help with improving morale and satisfaction with the system.” During a visit in early February by VA and the Oracle team to the Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, “feedback from pharmacists was positive about the training and readiness for using the new pharmacy system.”

The backlog, at least, may be resolved. Sicilia said on average more than 215,000 outpatient prescriptions are being filled each month. “The current live sites do not have a backlog in filling prescriptions. Recent data from this month show that three of the five live sites have zero prescriptions waiting to be processed that are older than seven days. The two other live sites have an average of two prescriptions older than seven days,” he said.

Although Oracle Health has since resolved some of the identified issues, the OIG is concerned that the new EHR will continue to be deployed at medical facilities despite “myriad” as-yet unresolved issues related to inaccurate medication ordering, reconciliation, and dispensing. The VHA has paused Cerner deployments multiple times.

“It is unclear whether identified problems are being adequately resolved before additional deployments,” Case said. “There is also the question of whether there is sufficient transparency and communication among EHRM-IO, VHA and facility leaders, VA leaders, and Oracle Health needed for quality control and critical coordination. Trust in VA is also dependent on patients being fully and quickly advised when issues affecting them are identified and addressed. As VA moves toward its deployment next month at a complex facility jointly operated with the Department of Defense, transparency, communication, and program management will be essential to getting it right. Failures in these areas risk cascading problems.”

Will the new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacy software be safe and effective? That was the topic when David Case, the VA Deputy Inspector General, spoke in the US House of Representatives Veterans Affairs Committee technology modernization subcommittee hearing on February 15.

Questions like that have dogged the project since 2018, when the VA began rolling out the Oracle Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system as the successor to ViSTA.

The Oracle system has been beset by one glitch after another since its arrival. And in that time, Case said, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been engaging with VA employees at sites in Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, and other locations where the modernization program has been piloted.

The most recent OIG investigation of pharmacy-related patient safety issues began with a review of an allegation of a prescription backlog at Columbus, Ohio, where the system went live on April 30, 2022. The OIG found that facility leaders took “timely and sustainable steps” to manage that issue. However, other unresolved patient safety issues came to light, such as medication inaccuracies, inaccurate medication data, and insufficient staffing. The OIG also found staff were creating “numerous work arounds” to provide patient care, and that the volume of staff educational materials for pharmacy-related functions was “overwhelming.”

Those problems were just the latest in a long queue. In May 2021, after the first VA deployment of the new EHR at the Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington, a pharmacy patient safety team under the VA National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) also had identified patient safety issues and “multiple” concerns regarding the system’s usability. For example, updates to a patient’s active medication list were not routinely reflected at the patient’s next appointment. Despite knowing about such challenges, Case noted in his report, VA leaders deployed the new EHR at 4 more VA medical centers.

Cerner/ViSTA Communication

One major cause of the current problems is the way the systems “talk” to each other. EHR information is communicated between VHA facilities through channels that include the Joint Longitudinal Viewer (JLV) and the Health Data Repository, which stores patient-specific clinical information from both the legacy and the new EHR systems. The JLV application allows clinicians to access a read only version of a patient’s EHR from both systems.

Every medication used in VHA has a VA Unique Identifier (VUID). When a patient is prescribed a medication at a new EHR site, that medication’s VUID is sent to the Health Data Repository. If that patient seeks care from a legacy health care practitioner (HCP), and that HCP enters a medication order, a software interface accesses the VUID from the Health Data Repository to verify that the medication being prescribed is safe and compatible with the medications and allergies previously documented in the patient’s record.

However, on March 31, 2023, staff from a ViSTA site found an incorrect medication order when prescribing a new medication to a patient who had received care and medications at a new EHR site. This in turn led to the discovery that an error in Oracle software coding had resulted in the “widespread transmission” of incorrect VUIDs from new EHR sites to legacy EHR sites, the OIG found. VA leaders and HCPs were notified of the potential clinical impact and were given specific instructions on how to mitigate the issue. They were asked to “please share widely.”

On top of that, days later, patient safety managers across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were told that drug-to-drug interactions, duplicate medication orders, and allergy checks were not functioning as expected, and they too were provided with remedial actions.

Oracle applied a successful software patch on in April 2023, to ensure accurate VUIDs were attached to all mail order pharmacy–processed prescriptions from that date forward. However, the OIG learned the incorrect VUIDs sent from new EHR sites and stored in the Health Data Repository from as far back as October 2020 had not been corrected. Case told the subcommittee that on November 29, 2023, the VHA Pharmacy Council reported withdrawing a request for Oracle to send corrected medication VUID data to the Health Data Repository, on the presumption that remaining inaccurate VUIDs would expire in early April 2024, and the data would be corrected at that time.

The OIG is concerned, Case said, that patient medication data remains inaccurate almost a year after VA learned of the issue. The mail order pharmacy-related data generated from approximately 120,000 patients served by new EHR sites are still incorrect. These patients face an ongoing risk of an adverse medication-related event if they receive care and medications from a VA medical center using the legacy EHR system.

The OIG also learned of other problems associated with transmission of medication and allergy information, which could have consequences such as:

• Patient medications being discontinued or stopped by new HCPs using Cerner that appear in ViSTA as active and current prescriptions;
• Allergy-warning messages not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong medication;
• Duplicate medication order checks not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong drug;
• Patient active medication lists having incomplete or inaccurate information, such as missing prescriptions, duplicate prescriptions, or incorrect medication order statuses.

The OIG warned VHA employees about the risks, although it wasn’t possible to determine who might actually be at risk. A VHA leader told the OIG that all patients who have been prescribed any medications or have medication allergies documented at a at a Cerner site are at risk. That could mean as many as 250,000 patients: As of September 2023, approximately 190,000 patients had a medication prescribed and 126,000 had an allergy documented at a new EHR site.

Case Example

Not surprisingly, “the OIG is not confident in [EHRM-Integration Office] leaders’ oversight and control of the new systems’ Health Data Repository interface programming,” Case said. He cited the case of a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury with adrenal insufficiency. Four days prior to admission, a ViSTA site pharmacist used the EHR to perform a medication reconciliation for the patient. The data available did not include the patient’s most recent prednisone prescription, which had been ordered by an HCP at a facility using Cerner.

A nurse practitioner performed another reconciliation when the patient was admitted to the residential program, but the patient was unsure of all their medications. Because the most recent prednisone prescription was not visible in ViSTA, the prednisone appeared to have been completed at least 3 months prior to admission and was therefore not prescribed in the admission medication orders.

Five days into the residential program, the patient began exhibiting unusual behaviors associated with the lack of prednisone. The patient realized they needed more prednisone, but the nurse explained there was no prednisone on the patient’s medication list. Eventually, the patient found the active prednisone order on their personal cell phone and was transferred to a local emergency department for care.

Work Arounds

The VHA’s efforts to forestall or mitigate system errors have in some cases had a cascade effect. For example, HCPs must essentially back up what the automated software is intended to do, with “complex, time-consuming” multistep manual safety checks when prescribing new medications for patients previously cared for at a Cerner site. The OIG is concerned that this increased vigilance is “unsustainable” by pharmacists and frontline staff and could lead to burnout and medication-related patient safety events. After the new EHR launched, the OIG found, burnout symptoms for pharmacy staff increased. Nonetheless, Case told the committee, OIG staff “have observed [employees’] unwavering commitment to prioritizing the care of patients while mitigating implementation challenges.”

EHR-related workload burdens have necessitated other adjustments. Columbus, for instance, hired 9 full-time clinical pharmacists—a 62% staffing increase—to help reduce the backlog. Pharmacy leaders created approximately 29 additional work-arounds to support pharmacy staff and prevent delays. Facility pharmacy leaders also developed approximately 25 educational materials, such as tip sheets, reference guides, and job aids. The OIG’s concern—apart from the overwhelming amount of information for staff to implement—is that such prophylactic measures may in fact give rise to inconsistent practices, which increase risks to patient safety.

Committed to Working With the VA

Mike Sicilia, executive vice president of Oracle Corporation, told lawmakers in the hearing, “After the initial deployments, it became clear that the pharmacy system needed to be enhanced to better meet VA’s needs. To that end, in August 2022, shortly after Oracle completed its acquisition of Cerner, VA contracted with us for seven enhancements that overall would adapt the pharmacy system to a more bidirectional system between VA providers placing prescription orders and VA pharmacists fulfilling and dispensing them.” Those enhancements are all live for VA providers and pharmacists to use now, he said, except for one that is undergoing additional testing.

He added, “As with any healthcare technology system, there is a need for continuous improvements but that does not mean the system is not safe and effective in its current state. Oracle is committed to working with VA … throughout the reset period to identify workflows and other items that can be simplified or streamlined to improve the overall user and pharmacy experience.”

Standardizing workflows and ensuring training and communications to pharmacists about the latest updates will discourage use of work-arounds, Sicilia said, and “help with improving morale and satisfaction with the system.” During a visit in early February by VA and the Oracle team to the Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, “feedback from pharmacists was positive about the training and readiness for using the new pharmacy system.”

The backlog, at least, may be resolved. Sicilia said on average more than 215,000 outpatient prescriptions are being filled each month. “The current live sites do not have a backlog in filling prescriptions. Recent data from this month show that three of the five live sites have zero prescriptions waiting to be processed that are older than seven days. The two other live sites have an average of two prescriptions older than seven days,” he said.

Although Oracle Health has since resolved some of the identified issues, the OIG is concerned that the new EHR will continue to be deployed at medical facilities despite “myriad” as-yet unresolved issues related to inaccurate medication ordering, reconciliation, and dispensing. The VHA has paused Cerner deployments multiple times.

“It is unclear whether identified problems are being adequately resolved before additional deployments,” Case said. “There is also the question of whether there is sufficient transparency and communication among EHRM-IO, VHA and facility leaders, VA leaders, and Oracle Health needed for quality control and critical coordination. Trust in VA is also dependent on patients being fully and quickly advised when issues affecting them are identified and addressed. As VA moves toward its deployment next month at a complex facility jointly operated with the Department of Defense, transparency, communication, and program management will be essential to getting it right. Failures in these areas risk cascading problems.”

Will the new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacy software be safe and effective? That was the topic when David Case, the VA Deputy Inspector General, spoke in the US House of Representatives Veterans Affairs Committee technology modernization subcommittee hearing on February 15.

Questions like that have dogged the project since 2018, when the VA began rolling out the Oracle Cerner electronic health record (EHR) system as the successor to ViSTA.

The Oracle system has been beset by one glitch after another since its arrival. And in that time, Case said, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been engaging with VA employees at sites in Washington, Oregon, Ohio, Illinois, and other locations where the modernization program has been piloted.

The most recent OIG investigation of pharmacy-related patient safety issues began with a review of an allegation of a prescription backlog at Columbus, Ohio, where the system went live on April 30, 2022. The OIG found that facility leaders took “timely and sustainable steps” to manage that issue. However, other unresolved patient safety issues came to light, such as medication inaccuracies, inaccurate medication data, and insufficient staffing. The OIG also found staff were creating “numerous work arounds” to provide patient care, and that the volume of staff educational materials for pharmacy-related functions was “overwhelming.”

Those problems were just the latest in a long queue. In May 2021, after the first VA deployment of the new EHR at the Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington, a pharmacy patient safety team under the VA National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) also had identified patient safety issues and “multiple” concerns regarding the system’s usability. For example, updates to a patient’s active medication list were not routinely reflected at the patient’s next appointment. Despite knowing about such challenges, Case noted in his report, VA leaders deployed the new EHR at 4 more VA medical centers.

Cerner/ViSTA Communication

One major cause of the current problems is the way the systems “talk” to each other. EHR information is communicated between VHA facilities through channels that include the Joint Longitudinal Viewer (JLV) and the Health Data Repository, which stores patient-specific clinical information from both the legacy and the new EHR systems. The JLV application allows clinicians to access a read only version of a patient’s EHR from both systems.

Every medication used in VHA has a VA Unique Identifier (VUID). When a patient is prescribed a medication at a new EHR site, that medication’s VUID is sent to the Health Data Repository. If that patient seeks care from a legacy health care practitioner (HCP), and that HCP enters a medication order, a software interface accesses the VUID from the Health Data Repository to verify that the medication being prescribed is safe and compatible with the medications and allergies previously documented in the patient’s record.

However, on March 31, 2023, staff from a ViSTA site found an incorrect medication order when prescribing a new medication to a patient who had received care and medications at a new EHR site. This in turn led to the discovery that an error in Oracle software coding had resulted in the “widespread transmission” of incorrect VUIDs from new EHR sites to legacy EHR sites, the OIG found. VA leaders and HCPs were notified of the potential clinical impact and were given specific instructions on how to mitigate the issue. They were asked to “please share widely.”

On top of that, days later, patient safety managers across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) were told that drug-to-drug interactions, duplicate medication orders, and allergy checks were not functioning as expected, and they too were provided with remedial actions.

Oracle applied a successful software patch on in April 2023, to ensure accurate VUIDs were attached to all mail order pharmacy–processed prescriptions from that date forward. However, the OIG learned the incorrect VUIDs sent from new EHR sites and stored in the Health Data Repository from as far back as October 2020 had not been corrected. Case told the subcommittee that on November 29, 2023, the VHA Pharmacy Council reported withdrawing a request for Oracle to send corrected medication VUID data to the Health Data Repository, on the presumption that remaining inaccurate VUIDs would expire in early April 2024, and the data would be corrected at that time.

The OIG is concerned, Case said, that patient medication data remains inaccurate almost a year after VA learned of the issue. The mail order pharmacy-related data generated from approximately 120,000 patients served by new EHR sites are still incorrect. These patients face an ongoing risk of an adverse medication-related event if they receive care and medications from a VA medical center using the legacy EHR system.

The OIG also learned of other problems associated with transmission of medication and allergy information, which could have consequences such as:

• Patient medications being discontinued or stopped by new HCPs using Cerner that appear in ViSTA as active and current prescriptions;
• Allergy-warning messages not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong medication;
• Duplicate medication order checks not appearing when intended or inappropriately appearing for the wrong drug;
• Patient active medication lists having incomplete or inaccurate information, such as missing prescriptions, duplicate prescriptions, or incorrect medication order statuses.

The OIG warned VHA employees about the risks, although it wasn’t possible to determine who might actually be at risk. A VHA leader told the OIG that all patients who have been prescribed any medications or have medication allergies documented at a at a Cerner site are at risk. That could mean as many as 250,000 patients: As of September 2023, approximately 190,000 patients had a medication prescribed and 126,000 had an allergy documented at a new EHR site.

Case Example

Not surprisingly, “the OIG is not confident in [EHRM-Integration Office] leaders’ oversight and control of the new systems’ Health Data Repository interface programming,” Case said. He cited the case of a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury with adrenal insufficiency. Four days prior to admission, a ViSTA site pharmacist used the EHR to perform a medication reconciliation for the patient. The data available did not include the patient’s most recent prednisone prescription, which had been ordered by an HCP at a facility using Cerner.

A nurse practitioner performed another reconciliation when the patient was admitted to the residential program, but the patient was unsure of all their medications. Because the most recent prednisone prescription was not visible in ViSTA, the prednisone appeared to have been completed at least 3 months prior to admission and was therefore not prescribed in the admission medication orders.

Five days into the residential program, the patient began exhibiting unusual behaviors associated with the lack of prednisone. The patient realized they needed more prednisone, but the nurse explained there was no prednisone on the patient’s medication list. Eventually, the patient found the active prednisone order on their personal cell phone and was transferred to a local emergency department for care.

Work Arounds

The VHA’s efforts to forestall or mitigate system errors have in some cases had a cascade effect. For example, HCPs must essentially back up what the automated software is intended to do, with “complex, time-consuming” multistep manual safety checks when prescribing new medications for patients previously cared for at a Cerner site. The OIG is concerned that this increased vigilance is “unsustainable” by pharmacists and frontline staff and could lead to burnout and medication-related patient safety events. After the new EHR launched, the OIG found, burnout symptoms for pharmacy staff increased. Nonetheless, Case told the committee, OIG staff “have observed [employees’] unwavering commitment to prioritizing the care of patients while mitigating implementation challenges.”

EHR-related workload burdens have necessitated other adjustments. Columbus, for instance, hired 9 full-time clinical pharmacists—a 62% staffing increase—to help reduce the backlog. Pharmacy leaders created approximately 29 additional work-arounds to support pharmacy staff and prevent delays. Facility pharmacy leaders also developed approximately 25 educational materials, such as tip sheets, reference guides, and job aids. The OIG’s concern—apart from the overwhelming amount of information for staff to implement—is that such prophylactic measures may in fact give rise to inconsistent practices, which increase risks to patient safety.

Committed to Working With the VA

Mike Sicilia, executive vice president of Oracle Corporation, told lawmakers in the hearing, “After the initial deployments, it became clear that the pharmacy system needed to be enhanced to better meet VA’s needs. To that end, in August 2022, shortly after Oracle completed its acquisition of Cerner, VA contracted with us for seven enhancements that overall would adapt the pharmacy system to a more bidirectional system between VA providers placing prescription orders and VA pharmacists fulfilling and dispensing them.” Those enhancements are all live for VA providers and pharmacists to use now, he said, except for one that is undergoing additional testing.

He added, “As with any healthcare technology system, there is a need for continuous improvements but that does not mean the system is not safe and effective in its current state. Oracle is committed to working with VA … throughout the reset period to identify workflows and other items that can be simplified or streamlined to improve the overall user and pharmacy experience.”

Standardizing workflows and ensuring training and communications to pharmacists about the latest updates will discourage use of work-arounds, Sicilia said, and “help with improving morale and satisfaction with the system.” During a visit in early February by VA and the Oracle team to the Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, “feedback from pharmacists was positive about the training and readiness for using the new pharmacy system.”

The backlog, at least, may be resolved. Sicilia said on average more than 215,000 outpatient prescriptions are being filled each month. “The current live sites do not have a backlog in filling prescriptions. Recent data from this month show that three of the five live sites have zero prescriptions waiting to be processed that are older than seven days. The two other live sites have an average of two prescriptions older than seven days,” he said.

Although Oracle Health has since resolved some of the identified issues, the OIG is concerned that the new EHR will continue to be deployed at medical facilities despite “myriad” as-yet unresolved issues related to inaccurate medication ordering, reconciliation, and dispensing. The VHA has paused Cerner deployments multiple times.

“It is unclear whether identified problems are being adequately resolved before additional deployments,” Case said. “There is also the question of whether there is sufficient transparency and communication among EHRM-IO, VHA and facility leaders, VA leaders, and Oracle Health needed for quality control and critical coordination. Trust in VA is also dependent on patients being fully and quickly advised when issues affecting them are identified and addressed. As VA moves toward its deployment next month at a complex facility jointly operated with the Department of Defense, transparency, communication, and program management will be essential to getting it right. Failures in these areas risk cascading problems.”

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Calling the matter “a danger the public should not be forced to shoulder,” a federal judge has rejected a plea to temporarily restore the scores of 832 medical graduates from Nepal who are suspected of cheating on the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). 

In a February 23 order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper, of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, denied Latika Giri’s emergency motion to block the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) from invalidating the scores, ruling the public interest plainly weighs against granting the request. 

“First and foremost, is the overriding interest in public safety,” Cooper wrote in his 32-page order. “This is a case about the credentials of doctors applying to medical residency programs…Granting the preliminary injunction would create an unacceptable risk that individuals who lack the requisite knowledge and skills they purport to possess because they achieved their exam scores fraudulently will be administering medical care to unsuspecting patients across the nation.”

Attorneys for Giri did not return messages seeking comment about the order. 

The NBME also did not return messages seeking comment. The board previously said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The decision is the latest development in a widespread cheating scandal. Giri, an international medical graduate (IMG) from Kathmandu, sued NBME earlier this month claiming the board discriminated against Nepali medical graduates when it invalidated hundreds of exam scores linked to the country. 

Giri also accused NBME of violating its own procedures when it voided the scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal. She asked the district court to block NBME from invalidating her exam scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. 

In court documents, NBME argued that it did not invalidate the scores because the examinees were Nepali but because staff concluded that there was “a good faith basis for questioning the validity of the scores.” 

The invalidations were based on concerns that the results reflected prior access to secure exam content rather than knowledge and understanding of the medical principles and skills the exams are intended to assess, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

“The USMLE program took reasonable and appropriate actions to prevent the significant harm and disruption that would result from allowing potentially unqualified individuals to participate in the 2024 residency Match,” the NBME stated in court documents. “If granted, the requested injunction would cause enormous harm not only to NBME… but also to state licensing authorities, which rely upon USMLE results to help ensure that physicians have the minimum competencies needed to provide safe and effective health care.”

In his order, Cooper wrote that Giri has not proven the board’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors. 

“Nothing in the present record suggests that NBME went looking for a problem in Nepal out of ethnicity-or national-origin based [sic] suspicion,” Cooper wrote. “[It] followed the trail of evidence, including tips about organized cheating taking place in medical schools and at a testing center located in Nepal, and on an online forum for which a ‘nexus to Nepal’ was a ticket to admission.”

NBME: Nepal Outperformed All Other Countries on USMLE 

Court documents shed more light on NBME’s investigation into the suspected cheating and on the anomalous patterns the board allegedly discovered from Nepal medical graduates. 

In response to anonymous tips, the USMLE program in early 2023 asked the NBME Psychometrics and Data Analysis (PADA) unit to analyze examinee performance data for test centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan, according to court records. Within the initial data analysis, the data involving the single test center in Nepal was “the most extreme,” the unit found. 

Out of more than 400 test centers across the world, including those in the United States, the test center in Nepal produced the highest test scores in the world for Step 1 in 2021 and 2022 and the highest test scores in the world for Step 2 CK in 2022, according to court documents. For the 2022 Step 1 exam for example, the average score of examinees testing in the Nepal test center was 240. No other test center in the world had an average examinee score above 227, according to the NBME’s legal response. 

The median item response time for examinees who tested at the Nepal test center in 2022 was also among the fastest of all international test centers for Step 1 and Step 2 CK, investigators found. 

In addition, the volume of examinees taking the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK at the Nepal test center in Nepal had sharply increased. Step 1 volume more than doubled in the Nepal test center from 281 examinees in 2019 to 662 examinees in 2022, according to court documents. 

The rapid increase continued in 2023, when examinee volume was nearly three-and-a-half times higher than the 2019 volume. The data were consistent with anonymous tips received by the USMLE program office, suggesting there may be wide-scale collection and sharing of live USMLE exam content within Nepal. 

Investigation Finds Similar Correct and Incorrect Answers 

Agreement similarity among the exams analyzed also raised red flags. Investigators ran an “agreement analysis” for all examinees who tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, and Pakistan as well as two centers in India, according to court documents. 

For the 2022 Step 1 exam and the 2021 and 2022 Step 2 CK exam, the analysis showed a substantially higher percentage of examinees with a statistically significant level of agreement matches in the examine group that tested at centers in Jordan, Nepal, Pakistan, and India compared with the baseline group, according to legal records. 

The vast majority of examinees with a statistically significant number of matching incorrect answers tested at the Nepal test center, data showed. 

Further analysis found that examinee volumes increased considerably at the Nepal test center in the months prior to the USMLE program releasing new test items, “suggesting that candidates who had prior access to disclosed exam questions wanted to test before new questions came into the item pool.”

Investigators also identified posts on social medial and in online chat rooms suggesting groups were collecting and sharing large amounts of secure exam material in private groups. Some posts advised examinees to use the full examination time when taking the USMLE “to avoid raising suspicion about having had prior access to secure exam materials,” according to court documents. 

From its investigation and analysis, the USMLE program identified 832 examinees who had passing level exam results whose validity the USMLE program had a significant and good faith basis for questioning, according to court records. 

Of the total, 618 examinees had one Step score flagged as being of questioned validity, 202 examinees had two Step exam scores flagged, and 12 examinees had scores flagged on all three Step exams. 

NBME Defends Departure From Traditional Procedures

In court documents, NBME disputed claims that it violated its own procedures by invalidating the exam scores. Giri’s report contends that examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal — during which time, their scores are treated as valid. 

But the NBME said the USMLE program is authorized to take any actions it deems appropriate in response to concerns regarding score validity if the USMLE Committee for Individualized Review or the USMLE Composite Committee concludes that alternative or supplemental procedures are warranted in response to a given set of facts or circumstances. 

“Following the month-long investigation and analysis…the USMLE program concluded that alternative procedures were warranted to address the score invalidity concerns identified in the interest of providing a process that is timely, efficient, effective, and fair, and given the large number of examinees involved in the investigation,” the board stated in its legal response. 

In his order, Cooper wrote the current scenario, which implicates that more than 800 test-takers, is “clearly a situation calling for a procedure geared toward efficiency.” No evidence shows the board would not have taken similarly swift action if confronted with evidence of cheating on a comparable scale elsewhere, he wrote. 

The judge also denied Giri’s motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff has the option to renew the motion should the case proceed. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Imran Ali, MD, is not due for recertification in internal medicine for a few more years, but he already plans to forego the traditional 1-day exam and opt instead for a newer one, and what he hopes will prove less stressful approach to maintaining his credentials: The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

Dr. Ali, assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, is far from alone. Since the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) launched the new method in 2022, approximately 80% of internists have chosen the LKA to maintain their board certification over the 10-year Maintenance of Certification (MOC) exam coupled with continuing education requirements.

“You have to keep learning. I think the LKA is good in that regard, as long as the questions are relevantly updated,” said Dr. Ali, who was first board-certified in 2018 and obtained his geriatrics certification in 2020.

Many other internists contend the MOC is too time-consuming and expensive and have taken action.

Some specialists, including a group of oncologists, argue the exam contains too much information that has become irrelevant to clinical practice. Members of the American College of Cardiology have even left ABIM over the certification process, as this news organization previously reported. After receiving criticism, the ABIM introduced longitudinal assessment as a less onerous means to maintain certification — although the group denies it succumbed to negative feedback.

One and Done, or More Flexibility?

Both the traditional 10-year exam and the LKA have their advantages and disadvantages, according to Helen Chen, MD, the chair of the Geriatric Medicine Board Exam–Writing Committee at ABIM.

The LKA is arguably easier to access and available for most internal medicine disciplines. It requires no preparation for studying, and internists can complete exam questions on their phone, computer, or tablet.

Participants receive 30 questions per quarter for 5 years. Feedback is immediate and includes links to references for further learning. Once the process is completed and a physician meets the performance standard, the next 5-year cycle begins.

Still, some physicians still prefer the traditional 10-year, long-form exam. Studying for the test can be intense and take months. Physicians also must travel to an exam center on a designated date. However, once the test is over, the certification test does not roll around for another decade.

“It’s really about choice. Some doctors want to sit down and do it all at once and get it over with; others prefer to do a few questions at a time and never feel rushed,” said Dr. Chen, who is triple-boarded in geriatrics, internal medicine, and hospice and palliative medicine.

In 2022, Dr. Chen opted to begin the LKA cycle; a cross-country move and new job would not have allowed her enough time to prepare for the long-form exam, she said.

The new exam challenged her knowledge in smaller bites, provided immediate feedback, and allowed her to satisfy her curiosity through additional reading, she said, even if some questions were not relevant to her clinical practice.

The LKA is not yet as specialized, and ABIM is working to refine questions to be more relevant for some subspecialties.

Questions for both the LKA and long-form exam are developed from physician input, according to Dr. Chen. They are regularly assessed for relevance, accuracy, and changes to practice guidelines.

She acknowledged that questions can sometimes become outdated in a relatively short time, particularly for those taking the 10-year exam. But feedback from physicians helps committees analyze the relevancy of questions and how intensely an area should be tested. Committee members will even throw out questions if the literature changes significantly.

An Unnecessary Exercise

As criticism has mounted over the MOC, physicians have questioned whether recertification is necessary.

According to a survey of 1700 members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), most (64%) backed initial ABIM certification, but three quarters said the recertification process did not benefit their knowledge of clinical practice. More than 80% reported that Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits should suffice for ongoing learning, without having to be supplemented by the MOC exam. ASCO is considering alternative pathways to the current process based on their member feedback and plans to release a proposal to members in the first half of 2024.

Meanwhile, some cardiologists have called the MOC process “an onerous and unnecessary addition to continuing medical education requirements they already must meet at the state and hospital levels.”

The ABIM responded in part in a recent JAMA Viewpoint written by several members of the ABIM board of directors. They said board-certified physicians save the health system about $5 billion annually, compared with those who are not.

“Patients who are cared for by physicians who demonstrate more medical knowledge through certification and MOC have a better prognosis for a host of important outcomes including lower mortality from cardiovascular disease, fewer emergency department visits, and fewer unplanned hospitalizations,” the group wrote.

Certification provides a significant benefit, according to Dr. Ali. Some of his patients do ask about his credentials. He said he also finds keeping up with the latest information essential. Ongoing learning shows patients he is committed to providing the best care, he said. “It benefits me, and I’ve benefited my patients. When they come in with questions, I can speak knowledgeably,” he said.

Maintaining board certification is also not unique to internal medicine physicians or subspecialists. Other physician specialties mandate more frequent exams, include both oral and written portions, or administer exams totally online. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has a longitudinal option, similar to the LKA, as an alternative to their 1-day exam.

Margo Savoy, MD, MPH, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness, and physician well-being at AAFP, said physicians should make the best choice for them.

“The AAFP welcomes the opportunity for family physicians to have options for how to demonstrate their competence and strongly encourages a balanced approach that avoids undue administrative burdens and fosters a culture of physician well-being and high-quality care,” Dr. Savoy said.

The ABIM has also been criticized for the fee structure for MOC, which some physicians consider excessive: $220 per year for the first certification and $120 for each additional certification. Physicians choosing to take the 10-year exam are charged an additional $700 testing center fee. Those charges do not include the cost of attending CME-related activities. One analysis estimated the cost of maintaining certification could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars, primarily from the time physicians must spend preparing for the long-form exam.

Dr. Chen pushed back on the contention that the ABIM is making a huge profit off of the 10-year exam. She called MOC fees reasonable when amortized over a 10-year cycle and noted the costs for longitudinal assessment are included in those charges.

Meanwhile, she encouraged physicians who were on the fence about maintaining board certification at all to consider both the benefit to their practice and to their patients, especially since the LKA has already demonstrated such popularity.

“There’s nothing like continuous learning to keep you humble,” Dr. Chen said. “You just don’t know everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.

She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.

A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.

I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.

Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.

A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.

Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.

These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not. Disease prevalence varies by regions, and there are certain genetic issues one has to take into account, but the basic principles of medicine are the same.

Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.

The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
 

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

Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.

She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.

A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.

I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.

Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.

A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.

Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.

These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not. Disease prevalence varies by regions, and there are certain genetic issues one has to take into account, but the basic principles of medicine are the same.

Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.

The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
 

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

Some things are universal, or at least worldwide.

She didn’t speak a word of English, but I don’t speak any Mandarin. Fortunately, her concerned son was fluent in both.

A nice lady in her 60s, here from China to visit her son and his family for a month. The visit was going fine until she abruptly developed double vision. Through the modern miracle of email she contacted her doctor in Beijing, who told her to find a neurologist here or go to an ER.

I’d had a last minute cancellation a few minutes before her son called and so was able to see her that afternoon. Both were scared that I was going to admit her to a hospital.

Fortunately, people are wired the same no matter where they’re from. The electrical fibers of the nervous system are predictable across international borders, as are the maladies.

A history and exam made the diagnosis of a diabetic cranial nerve palsy most likely, and I was able to reassure them. I ordered the usual imaging studies (fortunately she’d bought travelers’ insurance in advance). As anticipated, they were normal.

Her son and I spoke by phone to close things out, with her in the background and him translating between us. By the time she left 2 weeks later the symptoms were resolving. I made sure she went home with copies of my notes and the MRI reports, figuring someone there would be able to translate them for her physician.

These sorts of encounters are uncommon in my little solo practice, but still drive home the point that people around the world have more in common than not. Disease prevalence varies by regions, and there are certain genetic issues one has to take into account, but the basic principles of medicine are the same.

Not to mention families. The mother traveling around the world to see her son and grandchildren. The child concerned for the welfare of his parent and helping her get care. These, too, are human universals, regardless of the language spoken. There isn’t a culture on Earth that doesn’t value family connections, nor is there one that didn’t develop (albeit in different forms) doctors.

The human population is 8 billion. Everyone is different, and yet everyone, overall, is the same. Fellow travelers on a small planet.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m delighted to talk about a very interesting topic in this commentary. This is an area that we generally don’t discuss, but it’s one that’s obviously very topical, which includes the question of social media.

The paper I’m referring to is entitled, “More Than a Song and Dance”: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok. The paper was published in Gynecologic Oncology in 2023.

The investigators, very interestingly, looked at the most common hashtags for the five most common gynecologic cancers on TikTok. They had a total of 466.7 million views. They looked at 430 of the 500 top posts that were eligible, looked at 11 central themes, did an objective analysis of educational content based on published strategy for looking at this.

What they found, unfortunately but not surprisingly, overall was that the educational quality and reliability were quite poor. They also noticed considerable differences in disparities based on racial background and really emphasized in their analysis not only how common it is for individuals to look at this content on TikTok but also concerns about what it is that the public, patients, and their families are actually seeing.

This, of course, specifically relates to gynecologic cancers, but almost certainly relates to other cancers as well. Clearly, this is a topic that needs to be discussed widely. It’s very complex and very controversial, but when you think about the information that might be provided to our patients and their families going to social media, it’s important that we understand what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, what they’re viewing, and the impact this might have on their care and outcomes.

I encourage you to read this very interesting paper if you have an interest in this topic. Again, it was recently published in Gynecologic Oncology. I thank you for your attention.

Dr. Markman is professor, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California; president of Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

Communicating bad news to patients is one of the most stressful and challenging clinical tasks for any physician, regardless of his or her specialty. Delivering bad news to a patient or their close relative is demanding because the information provided during the dialogue can substantially alter the person’s perspective on life. This task is more frequent for physicians caring for oncology patients and can also affect the physician’s emotional state.

The manner in which bad news is communicated plays a significant role in the psychological burden on the patient, and various communication techniques and guidelines have been developed to enable physicians to perform this difficult task effectively.

Revealing bad news in person whenever possible, to address the emotional responses of patients or relatives, is part of the prevailing expert recommendations. However, it has been acknowledged that in certain situations, communicating bad news over the phone is more feasible.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disclosure of bad news over the phone has become a necessary substitute for in-person visits and an integral part of clinical practice worldwide. It remains to be clarified what the real psychological impact on patients and their closest relatives is when delivering bad news over the phone compared with delivering it in person.

Right and Wrong Ways

The most popular guideline for communicating bad news is SPIKES, a six-phase protocol with a special application for cancer patients. It is used in various countries (eg, the United States, France, and Germany) as a guide for this sensitive practice and for training in communication skills in this context. The SPIKES acronym refers to the following six recommended steps for delivering bad news:

• Setting: Set up the conversation.
• Perception: Assess the patient’s perception.
• Invitation: Ask the patient what he or she would like to know.
• Knowledge: Provide the patient with knowledge and information, breaking it down into small parts.
• Emotions: Acknowledge and empathetically address the patient’s emotions.
• Strategy and Summary: Summarize and define a medical action plan.

The lesson from SPIKES is that when a person experiences strong emotions, it is difficult to continue discussing anything, and they will struggle to hear anything. Allowing for silence is fundamental. In addition, empathy allows the patient to express his or her feelings and concerns, as well as provide support. The aim is not to argue but to allow the expression of emotions without criticism. However, these recommendations are primarily based on expert opinion and less on empirical evidence, due to the difficulty of studies in assessing patient outcomes in various phases of these protocols.

A recent study analyzed the differences in psychological distress between patients who received bad news over the phone vs those who received it in person. The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The investigators examined 5944 studies, including 11 qualitative analysis studies, nine meta-analyses, and four randomized controlled trials.

In a set of studies ranging from moderate to good quality, no difference in psychological distress was found when bad news was disclosed over the phone compared with in person, regarding anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

There was no average difference in patient satisfaction levels when bad news was delivered over the phone compared with in person. The risk for dissatisfaction was similar between groups.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

The demand for telemedicine, including the disclosure of bad news, is growing despite the limited knowledge of potential adverse effects. The results of existing studies suggest that the mode of disclosure may play a secondary role, and the manner in which bad news is communicated may be more important.

Therefore, it is paramount to prepare patients or their families for the possibility of receiving bad news well in advance and, during the conversation, to ensure first and foremost that they are in an appropriate environment. The structure and content of the conversation may be relevant, and adhering to dedicated communication strategies can be a wise choice for the physician and the interlocutor.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

A group of 16 Democratic legislators on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform has demanded in a letter that the drugmaker Pfizer present details on how the company is responding to shortages of the generic chemotherapy drugs carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate.

In a statement about their February 21 action, the legislators, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the committee’s ranking minority member, described their work as a follow up to an earlier investigation into price hikes of generic drugs. While the committee members queried Pfizer over the three oncology medications only, they also sent letters to drugmakers Teva and Sandoz with respect to shortages in other drug classes.

A representative for Pfizer confirmed to MDedge Oncology that the company had received the representatives’ letter but said “we have no further details to provide at this time.”

What is the basis for concern?

All three generic chemotherapy drugs are mainstay treatments used across a broad array of cancers. Though shortages have been reported for several years, they became especially acute after December 2022, when an inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led to regulatory action against an Indian manufacturer, Intas, that produced up to half of the platinum-based therapies supplied globally. The National Comprehensive Cancer Care Network reported in October 2023 that more than 90% of its member centers were struggling to maintain adequate supplies of carboplatin, and 70% had trouble obtaining cisplatin, while the American Society of Clinical Oncology published clinical guidance on alternative treatment strategies.

What has the government done in response to the recent shortages?

The White House and the FDA announced in September that they were working with several manufacturers to help increase supplies of the platinum-based chemotherapies and of methotrexate, and taking measures that included relaxing rules on imports. Recent guidance under a pandemic-era federal law, the 2020 CARES Act, strengthened manufacturer reporting requirements related to drug shortages, and other measures have been proposed. While federal regulators have many tools with which to address drug shortages, they cannot legally oblige a manufacturer to increase production of a drug.

What can the lawmakers expect to achieve with their letter?

By pressuring Pfizer publicly, the lawmakers may be able to nudge the company to take measures to assure more consistent supplies of the three drugs. The lawmakers also said they hoped to glean from Pfizer more insight into the root causes of the shortages and potential remedies. They noted that, in a May 2023 letter by Pfizer to customers, the company had warned of depleted and limited supplies of the three drugs and said it was “working diligently” to increase output. However, the lawmakers wrote, “the root cause is not yet resolved and carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate continue to experience residual delays.”

Why did the committee target Pfizer specifically?

Pfizer and its subsidiaries are among the major manufacturers of the three generic chemotherapy agents mentioned in the letter. The legislators noted that “pharmaceutical companies may not be motivated to produce generic drugs like carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, because they are not as lucrative as producing patented brand name drugs,” and that “as a principal supplier of carboplatin, cisplatin, and methotrexate, it is critical that Pfizer continues to increase production of these life-sustaining cancer medications, even amidst potential lower profitability.”

The committee members also made reference to news reports of price-gouging with these medications, as smaller hospitals or oncology centers are forced to turn to unscrupulous third-party suppliers.

What is being demanded of Pfizer?

Pfizer was given until March 6 to respond, in writing and in a briefing with committee staff, to a six questions. These queries concern what specific steps the company has taken to increase supplies of the three generic oncology drugs, what Pfizer is doing to help avert price-gouging, whether further oncology drug shortages are anticipated, and how the company is working with the FDA on the matter.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A value-based medication plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetic medications reduces health complications in commercially insured individuals with diabetes, especially those living in lower-income areas.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers assessed the 1-year impact on type 2 diabetes outcomes from a preventive drug list (PDL), which employers can add to plans to reduce out-of-pocket costs (copayments or deductibles) for high-value preventive medications.
• Using data from a national insurer, they identified 10,588 members with diabetes newly enrolled in PDL plans between January 2004 and June 2017 (age, 12-64 years; 44.8% women; 45.5% from the South; 33.4% from employers with < 100 enrollees).
• The members with diabetes on a PDL plan for a full follow-up year were matched and weighted against 690,075 control participants whose employers did not offer PDL.
• In a subgroup analysis, health outcomes for members with diabetes residing in lower-income neighborhoods (53.1%) were evaluated.
• The primary outcome was acute, preventable diabetes complications, such as bacterial infections, neurovascular events, acute coronary disease, and diabetic ketoacidosis, measured as complication days per 1000 members per year.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin antidiabetic agents and insulin declined by 30.7% and 38.6%, respectively, in the PDL group vs controls. 
• The 30-day prescription fills for noninsulin and insulin antidiabetic medication increased by 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.3%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-8.4%), respectively, among PDL members and was slightly higher among PDL members residing in low-income areas. 
• The PDL transition was associated with an 8.4% relative reduction (95% CI, −13.9% to −2.8%) in complication days overall (absolute reduction, −20.2 days per 1000 members per year). 
• Among members from lower-income areas, PDL transition was associated with a 10.2% relative reduction (95% CI, −17.4% to −3.0%) in complication days (absolute reduction, −26.1 per 1000 members per year) compared with controls. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Targeting out-of-pocket cost reductions to specific populations, in this case patients with diabetes from lower-income areas, might enhance health outcomes,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE: 

The study was conducted by J. Franklin Wharam, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Health Forum. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The findings may be generalized only to patients with diabetes enrolled in commercial health plans. Instead of being randomized, the PDL coverage was chosen by certain employers. Moreover, only outcomes associated with new PDL enrollment over a single year were evaluated.

DISCLOSURES: 

The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One of the authors reported receiving postmarket safety study stipends from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.