User login
Unleashing Our Immune Response to Quash Cancer
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”
It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.
Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.
Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.
And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.
As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.
Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.
An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.
But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.
Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines
There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.
Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.
An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.
Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)
There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.
A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.
This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.
Oncolytic Viruses
Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.
After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.
Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])
As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.
As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.
Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.
Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.
Summary
Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.
Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.
Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.
Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.
Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Balancing Patient Satisfaction With Saying No
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.
One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction.
Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.
“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”
Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
Hear Patients Out
When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”
“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
Help Patients Rethink Requests
The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”
For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
Use Safety Concerns as an Out
Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.
“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”
Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly
It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review
No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”
“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.
Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”
Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is ChatGPT Reliable for CRC Screening/Surveillance Advice?
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
ChatGPT (version 3.5) provides relatively poor and inconsistent responses when asked about appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance, a new study showed.
METHODOLOGY:
- Three board-certified gastroenterologists with 10+ years of clinical experience developed five CRC screening and five CRC surveillance clinical vignettes (with multiple choice answers), which were fed to ChatGPT version 3.5.
- ChatGPT’s responses were recorded over four separate sessions and screened for accuracy to determine reliability of the tool.
- The average number of correct answers was compared to that of 238 gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons answering the same questions with and without the help of a previously validated CRC screening mobile app.
TAKEAWAY:
- ChatGPT’s average overall performance was 45%; the average number of correct answers was 2.75 for screening and 1.75 for surveillance.
- ChatGPT’s responses were inconsistent in a large proportion of questions; the tool gave a different answer in four questions among the different sessions.
- The average number of total correct answers of ChatGPT was significantly lower (P < .001) than that of physicians with and without the mobile app (7.71 and 5.62 correct answers, respectively).
IN PRACTICE:
“The use of validated mobile apps with decision-making algorithms could serve as more reliable assistants until large language models developed with AI are further refined,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Lisandro Pereyra, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was published online on February 7, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
The 10 clinical vignettes represented a relatively small sample size to assess accuracy. The study did not use the latest version of ChatGPT. No “fine-tuning” attempts with inputs of diverse prompts, instructions, or relevant data were performed, which could potentially improve the performance of the chatbot.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Urologist Sues Health System Over Noncompete Clause
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice.
According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania.
Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure.
Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN.
Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation.
After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said.
Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said.
Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs.
For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1.
“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.
Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said.
Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”
That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses.
Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants.
Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.”
As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Nepali IMG Sues NBME for Invalidating USMLE Scores in Cheating Scandal
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in response to a widespread cheating scandal.
Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action.
The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal.
The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation.
Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit.
“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat
Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam.
A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.
Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years.
If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.
“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices
Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid.
Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint.
About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit.
Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted.
“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”
Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents.
Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Beware the Letter of Intent
I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.
When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.
The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.
When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”
There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.
You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.
When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.
Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.
This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.
Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.
While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.
When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.
The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.
When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”
There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.
You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.
When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.
Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.
This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.
Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.
While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.
When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.
The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.
When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”
There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.
You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.
When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.
Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.
This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.
Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.
While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Physicians as First Responders II
I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.
Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?
How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?
Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?
Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.
What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.
I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.
What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.
Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?
Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.
Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?
How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?
Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?
Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.
What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.
I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.
What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.
Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?
Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I recently wrote about a fledgling program here in Maine in which some emergency room physicians were being outfitted with equipment and communications gear that would allow them to respond on the fly to emergencies in the field when they weren’t working in the hospital. I questioned the rationale of using in-house personnel, already in short supply, for the few situations in which trained EMT personnel would usually be called. At the same time, I promised to return to the broader subject of the role of physicians as first responders in a future letter. And, here it is.
Have you ever been on a plane or at a large public gathering and the public addressed system crackled, “Is there a doctor on board” or in the audience? Or have you been on the highway and come upon a fresh accident in which it appears that there may have been injuries? Or at a youth soccer game in which a player has been injured and is still on the ground?
How do you usually respond in situations like this? Do you immediately identify yourself as a physician? Or, do you routinely shy away from involvement? What thoughts run through your head?
Do you feel your training and experience with emergencies is so outdated that you doubt you could be of any assistance? Has your practice become so specialized that you aren’t comfortable with anything outside of your specialty? Maybe getting involved is likely to throw your already tight travel schedule into disarray? Or are you afraid that should something go wrong while you were helping out you could be sued?
Keeping in mind that I am a retired septuagenarian pediatrician more than a decade removed from active practice, I would describe my usual response to these situations as “attentive hovering.” I position myself to have a good view of the victim and watch to see if there are any other responders. Either because of their personality or their experience, often there is someone who steps forward to help. Trained EMTs seem to have no hesitancy going into action. If I sense things aren’t going well, or the victim is a child, I will identify myself as a retired pediatrician and offer my assistance. Even if the response given by others seems appropriate, I may still eventually identify myself, maybe to lend an air of legitimacy to the process.
What are the roots of my hesitancy? I have found that I generally have little to add when there is a trained first responder on hand. They have been-there-and-done-that far more recently than I have. They know how to stabilize potential or obvious fractures. They know how to position the victim for transport. Even when I am in an environment where my medical background is already known, I yield to the more recently experienced first responders.
I don’t particularly worry about being sued. Every state has Good Samaritan laws. Although the laws vary from state to state, here in Maine I feel comfortable with the good sense of my fellow citizens. I understand if you live or practice in a more litigious environment you may be more concerned. On an airplane there is the Aviation Medical Assistant Act, which became law in 1998, and provides us with some extra protection.
What if there is a situation in which even with my outdated skills I seem to be the only show in town? Fortunately, that situation hasn’t occurred for me in quite a few years, but the odds are that one might occur. In almost 1 out of 600 airline flights, there is an inflight emergency. I tend to hang out with other septuagenarians and octogenarians doing active things. And I frequent youth athletic events where there is unlikely to be a first responder assigned to the event.
Should I be doing more to update my skills? It’s been a while since I refreshed by CPR techniques. I can’t recall the last time I handled a defibrillator. Should I be learning more about exsanguination prevention techniques?
Every so often there are some rumblings to mandate that all physicians should be required to update these first responder skills to maintain their license or certification. That wouldn’t cover those of us who are retired or who no longer practice medicine. And, I’m not sure we need to add another layer to the system. I think there are enough of us out there who would like to add ourselves to the first responder population, maybe not as fully trained experts but as folks who would like to be more ready to help by updating old or seldom-used skills.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Healing From Trauma
“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel
A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.
I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.
At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.
Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.
Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.
I do not try to remember the hours and days after Susan’s death, but one moment stands out and makes my eyes well when I think of it. That following day my dear brother flew across the country on the next flight out. I was sitting in a psychiatry waiting room when he came down the hall with his luggage in tow. He hugged me as only a brother could, then looked me in my eyes, which were bloodshot from tears just as his were, and he said, “We’re going to be OK.” And with that he walked with me into the office.
We physicians are blessed to have so many intimate human interactions. This book reminded me that sometimes my most important job is not to be the optimized doctor, but just a good human walking alongside.
I have no conflict of interest and purchased these books.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel
A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.
I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.
At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.
Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.
Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.
I do not try to remember the hours and days after Susan’s death, but one moment stands out and makes my eyes well when I think of it. That following day my dear brother flew across the country on the next flight out. I was sitting in a psychiatry waiting room when he came down the hall with his luggage in tow. He hugged me as only a brother could, then looked me in my eyes, which were bloodshot from tears just as his were, and he said, “We’re going to be OK.” And with that he walked with me into the office.
We physicians are blessed to have so many intimate human interactions. This book reminded me that sometimes my most important job is not to be the optimized doctor, but just a good human walking alongside.
I have no conflict of interest and purchased these books.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
“You’ll never walk alone.” — Nettie Fowler, Carousel
A few winters ago, a young man and his fiancée were driving on the 91 freeway in southern California during a torrential downpour when their Honda Civic hydroplaned, slamming into the jersey barrier. They were both unhurt. Unsure what to do next, they made the catastrophic decision to exit the vehicle. As the man walked around the back of the car he was nearly hit by a black sedan sliding out of control trying to avoid them. When he came around the car, his fiancé was nowhere to be found. She had been struck at highway speed and lay crushed under the sedan hundreds of feet away.
I know this poor man because he was referred to me. Not as a dermatologist, but as a fellow human healing from trauma. On January 1, 2019, at about 9:30 PM, while we were home together, my beloved wife of 24 years took her own life. Even 5 years on it is difficult to believe that she isn’t proofing this paragraph like she had done for every one of my Derm News columns for years. We had been together since teenagers and had lived a joy-filled life. There isn’t any medical reason to share. But that day I joined the community of those who have carried unbearable heaviness of grief and survived. Sometimes others seek me out for help.
At first, my instinct was to guide them, to give advice, to tell them what to do and where to go. But I’ve learned that people in this dark valley don’t need a guide. They need someone to accompany them. To walk with them for a few minutes on their lonely journey. I recently read David Brooks’s new book, How to Know a Person. I’ve been a fan of his since he joined the New York Times in 2003 and have read almost everything he’s written. I sometimes even imagine how he might approach a column whenever I’m stuck (thank you, David). His The Road to Character book is in my canon of literature for self-growth. This latest book is an interesting digression from that central theme. He argues that our society is in acute need of forming better connections and that an important way we can be moral is to learn, and to practice, how to know each other. He shares an emotional experience of losing a close friend to suicide and writes a poignant explanation of what it means to accompany someone in need. It particularly resonated with me. We are doctors and are wired to find the source of a problem, like quickly rotating through the 4X, 10X, 40X on a microscope. Once identified, we spend most of our time creating and explaining treatments. I see how this makes me a great dermatologist but just an average human.
Brooks tells the story of a woman with a brain tumor who often finds herself on the ground surrounded by well-meaning people trying to help. She explains later that what she really needs in those moments is just for someone to get on the ground and lie with her. To accompany her.
Having crossed the midpoint of life, I see with the benefit of perspective how suffering has afforded me wisdom: I am more sensitive and attuned to others. It also gave me credibility: I know how it feels to walk life’s loneliest journey. I’ve also learned to make myself vulnerable for someone to share their story with me. I won’t be afraid to hear the details. I won’t judge them for weeping too little or for sobbing too much. I don’t answer whys. I won’t say what they should do next. But for a few minutes I can walk beside them as a person who cares.
I do not try to remember the hours and days after Susan’s death, but one moment stands out and makes my eyes well when I think of it. That following day my dear brother flew across the country on the next flight out. I was sitting in a psychiatry waiting room when he came down the hall with his luggage in tow. He hugged me as only a brother could, then looked me in my eyes, which were bloodshot from tears just as his were, and he said, “We’re going to be OK.” And with that he walked with me into the office.
We physicians are blessed to have so many intimate human interactions. This book reminded me that sometimes my most important job is not to be the optimized doctor, but just a good human walking alongside.
I have no conflict of interest and purchased these books.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Expert Hopes to Expand Ohio Model of Melanoma Case Reporting
SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.
“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”
About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”
In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.
Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.
Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.
“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.
He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.
There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.
“We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.
Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”
According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.
His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”
In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”
If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”
Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.
SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.
“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”
About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”
In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.
Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.
Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.
“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.
He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.
There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.
“We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.
Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”
According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.
His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”
In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”
If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”
Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.
SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.
“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”
About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”
In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.
Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.
Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.
“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.
He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.
There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.
“We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.
Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”
According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.
His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”
In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”
If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”
Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.
FROM MELANOMA 2024
Weighing the Big Decisions
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
In my mind’s calendar, two dates stand out. Both far enough away that I don’t have to think about them too much right now, but near enough that they can’t be forgotten about, either.
On September 30, 2028, my office lease ends, and in 2029 my neurology board certification has to be renewed. I’ll be in my early 60s then and I’ve been a practicing neurologist for 30 years.
I have no idea what I’m going to do. Of course, a lot can happen between now and then, and a lot of variables come into the calculus of when to retire.
After all these years, I still enjoy my job. It gives me the purpose that I wanted so long ago when I applied to medical school. The late William Pancoe, associate dean when I was at Creighton, always told us to remember how we felt when we got that acceptance letter — we’d need it to keep us going through medical school.
And, even now, I still remember the call from my dad that it had arrived. What a moment that was. I have no regrets. I can’t imagine doing anything else.
But in 4 years how much longer will I want to practice? Hopefully I’ll be faced with that decision. Will I want to renew the lease for 2 years? 5 years? I like my little office. It’s far from gleaming, there’s no TV or Keurig in the lobby, the carpet, paint, and furnishings are still from the early 90s when the place was built. But it’s my home away from home. I spend anywhere from 40-60 hours/week there. It’s quiet and (at least for me) cozy. Would I want to give that up and move to a smaller, shared place, for the remainder of my career? Or just close down?
Likewise, will I want to renew my board certification? Granted, that isn’t necessary to practice, but it certainly looks better to have it. To do that I’ll have to fork over a decent chunk of change to take the test, more money for a review course, and spend some time studying. Strange to think that at 63 I might be back at my desk (same desk, by the way) studying for a test like I did in college and medical school. But, if I want to keep playing doctor, that’s what I’ll have to do.
Four years to think about this. The same amount of time I spent each in high school, medical school, and residency. For that matter, the same amount of time since we all went into quarantine.
Doesn’t seem that long, does it?
I guess I’ve got some thinking to do.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.