User login
Abuse of the Safety-Net 340B Drug Pricing Program: Why Should Physicians Care?
The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.
What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured?
The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide.
The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.
When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)
Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?
Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.
It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.
Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.
Areas of Concern
There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.
DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%.
There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program.
Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.
Legal Challenges and Legislation
On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.
Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.
However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”
It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics.
Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.
Who’s Guarding the Hen House?
The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”
HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements.
So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.
What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured?
The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide.
The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.
When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)
Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?
Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.
It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.
Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.
Areas of Concern
There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.
DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%.
There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program.
Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.
Legal Challenges and Legislation
On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.
Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.
However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”
It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics.
Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.
Who’s Guarding the Hen House?
The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”
HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements.
So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
The 340B Drug Pricing Program began as a noble endeavor, a lifeline designed to help safety-net providers deliver affordable care to America’s most vulnerable populations. However, over the years, this well-intentioned program has strayed from its original purpose, becoming a lucrative space where profits often outweigh patients. Loopholes, lax oversight, and unchecked expansion have allowed some powerful players, such as certain disproportionate share hospitals and their “child sites” as well as for-profit pharmacies, to exploit the system. What was once a program to uplift underserved communities now risks becoming a case study in how good intentions can go astray without accountability.
What exactly is this “340B program” that has captured headlines and the interest of legislatures around the country? What ensures that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to participate in this program? How lucrative is it? How have underserved populations benefited and how is that measured?
The 340B Drug Pricing Program was established in 1992 under the Public Health Service Act. Its primary goal is to enable covered entities (such as hospitals and clinics serving low-income and uninsured patients) to purchase outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers at significantly reduced prices in order to support their care of the low-income and underserved populations. Drug makers are required to participate in this program as a condition of their participation in Medicaid and Medicare Part B and offer these steep discounts to covered entities if they want their medications to be available to 38% of patients nationwide.
The hospitals that make up 78% of the program’s spending are known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). These hospitals must be nonprofit and have at least an 11.75% “disproportionate” share of low-income Medicare or Medicaid inpatients. The other types of non-hospital entities qualifying for 340B pricing are known as initial “federal grantees.” Some examples include federally qualified health centers (FQHC), Ryan White HIV/AIDS program grantees, and other types of specialized clinics, such as hemophilia treatment centers. It needs to be noted up front that it is not these initial non-hospital federal grantees that need more oversight or reform, since according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 2023 report they make up only 22% of all program spending. It is the large, predominantly DSH health systems that are profiting immensely through exponential growth of their clinics and contract pharmacies. However, these health systems have not been able to show exactly who are their eligible patients and how they have been benefiting them.
When the 340B program was established to offer financial relief to hospitals and clinics taking care of the uninsured, it allowed them to save 20%-50% on drug purchases, which could be reinvested in patient care services. It was hoped that savings from the program could be used to provide free or low-cost medications, free vaccines, and other essential health services, essentially allowing safety-net providers to serve their communities despite financial constraints. The initial grantees are fulfilling that mission, but there are concerns regarding DSHs. (See the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organization’s 340B explanatory statement and policy position for more.)
Why Should Independent Practice Physicians Care About This?
Independent doctors should care about the lack of oversight in the 340B program because it affects healthcare costs, patient assistance, market competition, and access to affordable care for underserved and uninsured patients.
It also plays a strong hand in the healthcare consolidation that continues to threaten private physician practices. These acquisitions threaten the viability of independent practices in a variety of specialties across the United States, including rheumatology. HRSA allows 340B-covered entities to register their off-campus outpatient facilities, or child sites, under their 340B designation. Covered entities can acquire drugs at the 340B price, while imposing markups on the reimbursement they submit to private insurance. The additional revenue these covered entities can pocket provides them with a cash flow advantage that physician practices and outpatient clinics will never be able to actualize. This uneven playing field may make rheumatology practices more susceptible to hospital acquisitions. In fact, between 2016 and 2022, large 340B hospitals were responsible for approximately 80% of hospital acquisitions.
Perhaps the most important reason that we should all be concerned about the trajectory of this well-meaning program is that we have seen patients with hospital debt being sued by DSHs who receive 340B discounts so that they can take care of the low-income patients they are suing. We have seen Medicaid patients be turned away from a DSH clinic after being discharged from that hospital, because the hospital had reached its disproportionate share (11.75%) of inpatient Medicare and Medicaid patients. While not illegal, that type of behavior by covered entities is WRONG! Oversight and reform are needed if the 340B program is going to live up to its purpose and not be just another well-intentioned program not fulfilling its mission.
Areas of Concern
There has been controversy regarding the limited oversight of the 340B program by HRSA, leading to abuse of the program. There are deep concerns regarding a lack of transparency in how savings from the program are being used, and there are concerns about the challenges associated with accurate tracking and reporting of 340B discounts, possibly leading to the duplication of discounts for both Medicaid and 340B. For example, a “duplicate discount” occurs if a manufacturer sells medications to a DSH at the 340B price and later pays a Medicaid rebate on the same drug. The extent of duplicate discounts in the 340B program is unknown. However, an audit of 1,536 cases conducted by HRSA between 2012 and 2019 found 429 instances of noncompliance related to duplicate discounts, which is nearly 30% of cases.
DSHs and their contracted pharmacies have been accused of exploiting the program by increasing the number of contract pharmacies and expanding the number of offsite outpatient clinics to maximize profits. As of mid-2024, the number of 340B contract pharmacies, counted by Drug Channels Institute (DCI), numbered 32,883 unique locations. According to DCI, the top five pharmacies in the program happen also to be among the top pharmacy revenue generators and are “for-profit.” They are CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Express Scripts, and Optum RX. Additionally, a study in JAMA Health Forum showed that, from 2011 to 2019, contract pharmacies in areas with the lowest income decreased by 5.6% while those in the most affluent neighborhoods grew by 5%.
There also has been tremendous growth in the number of covered entities in the 340B program, which grew from just over 8,100 in 2000 to 50,000 in 2020. Before 2004, DSHs made up less than 10% of these entities, but by 2020, they accounted for over 60%. Another study shows that DSHs are expanding their offsite outpatient clinics (“child clinics”) into the affluent neighborhoods serving commercially insured patients who are not low income, to capture the high commercial reimbursements for medications they acquired at steeply discounted prices. This clearly is diverting care away from the intended beneficiaries of the 340B program.
Furthermore, DSHs have been acquiring specialty practices that prescribe some of the most expensive drugs, in order to take advantage of commercial reimbursement for medications that were acquired at the 340B discount price. Independent oncology practices have complained specifically about this happening in their area, where in some cases the DSHs have “stolen” their patients to profit off of the 340B pricing margins. This has the unintended consequence of increasing government spending, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that showed price markups at 340B eligible hospitals were 6.59 times as high as those in independent physician practices after accounting for drug, patient, and geographic factors.
Legal Challenges and Legislation
On May 21, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a unanimous decision in favor of drug manufacturers, finding that certain manufacturer restrictions on the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B drug pricing program are permissible. The court’s decision follows a lower court (3rd Circuit) ruling which concluded that the 340B statute does not require manufacturers to deliver 340B drugs to an “unlimited number of contract pharmacies.” We’re still awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court on a similar issue. If the 7th Circuit agrees with the government, creating a split decision, there is an increase in the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case.
Johnson & Johnson has also sued the federal government for blocking their proposed use of a rebate model for DSHs that purchase through 340B two of its medications, Stelara and Xarelto, whose maximum fair price was negotiated through the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. J&J states this would ensure that the claims are actually acquired and dispensed by a covered 340B entity, as well as ensuring there are no duplicate discounts as statutorily required by the IRA. When initially proposed, HRSA threatened to remove J&J’s access to Medicare and Medicaid if it pursued this change. J&J’s suit challenges that decision.
However, seven states (Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, and West Virginia) have been active on this issue, passing laws to prevent manufacturers from limiting contract pharmacies’ ability to acquire 340B-discounted drugs. The model legislation also bans restrictions on the “number, location, ownership, or type of 340B contract pharmacy.”
It should also be noted that there are states that are looking for ways to encourage certain independent private practice specialties (such as gastroenterology and rheumatology) to see Medicaid patients, as well as increase testing for sexually transmitted diseases, by offering the possibility of obtaining 340B pricing in their clinics.
Shifting our focus to Congress, six bipartisan Senators, known as the Group of 6, are working to modernize the 340B program, which hasn’t been updated since the original law in 1992. In 2024, legislation was introduced (see here and here) to reform a number of the features of the 340B drug discount program, including transparency, contract pharmacy requirements, and federal agency oversight.
Who’s Guarding the Hen House?
The Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General over the last 5-10 years have asked HRSA to better define an “eligible” patient, to have more specifics concerning hospital eligibility criteria, and to have better oversight of the program to avoid duplicate discounts. HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the ability or the funding to achieve some of these goals. Consequently, little has been done on any of these fronts, creating frustration among pharmaceutical manufacturers and those calling for more oversight of the program to ensure that eligible patients are receiving the benefit of 340B pricing. Again, these frustrations are not pointed at the initial federally qualified centers or “grantees.”
HRSA now audits 200 covered entities a year, which is less than 2% of entities participating in the 340B program. HRSA expects the 340B entities themselves to have an oversight committee in place to ensure compliance with program requirements.
So essentially, the fox is guarding the hen house?
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
Retire? Not Me! A Physician’s Journey of Reinvention
I’ve tried to retire from medicine. Really. Proofs of my sincerity include a true retirement from performing procedures and the closing of two office practices. I even attended the wonderful retirement party my daughters threw for me.
I had great plans for my newfound leisure time. I purchased about a thousand colored pencils to map my family ancestry. I wore out many magic erasers in my cleaning efforts. I cajoled my husband, Tony, to help me build not one, but three, gardens in our yard. Upon realizing I had no more weeds or closets to conquer, I began a Dante-like descent into a dark abyss. I felt my sadness was justified. After all, I had immensely enjoyed my early medical life.
From Private Practice to Being Employed
I had a joint cardiology practice with the great Jim Whiteside, MD, in South Central Kentucky for 24 years. Our schedule was always bursting at the seams in the heart of tobacco country. We opened the first cath lab in our hospital, inspired the purchase of a new nuclear scanner, and expanded the stress echo lab. After a 6-year odyssey, we successfully championed primary PCI without surgery on site (along with Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center in Danville, Kentucky). As our services expanded, we remodeled to accommodate three cardiologists and two nurse practitioners. Simultaneously, we lobbied our city council and mayor to pass smoke-free legislation, a lightning rod topic in a culture still loyal to a burning weed whose worth had paled in comparison to the cost of its carnage. We were “running wide open” and believed that we were doing important work.
But then our forward-thinking, appreciative CEO and friend died suddenly, and the open communication and innovation seemingly vanished. Those events inspired my first “retirement.” After this, I became employed for the first time and was blessed once again with a wonderful partner and colleagues. But despite those blessings, the global practice of medicine had begun to change. Physicians were now seen by some as widgets; their worth measured in productivity. A few years in, I needed part-time work to care for my aging parents. My employer needed more, thus inspiring my second “retirement”.
My Second ‘Retirement’
My parents died within 4 months of each other in 2020. Suddenly, I was untethered from both my professional persona and role as caregiver. It was then that my sadness accelerated toward what seemed like the second circle of Hell, with many more to come.
To many, my sadness made no sense. Our accountant reassured us that we no longer “needed” to work, and I was (and still am) happily married to my high school sweetheart. Our beautiful daughters were healthy and thriving. Although I mouthed appreciation for my blessings in prayer, I could not prevent myself from sinking further.
My always supportive husband was worried. Tony had skipped happily into his retirement from teaching. He had hoped I would do that same. “You cannot sit on that couch and mope for the rest of your life,” he said, exasperated.
I thought about doing just that, until one day I answered a phone call to hear, “Doctor, have you ever been to Montana?” Before I could cut her off, the woman charged into the description of a job opening for a locums cardiologist. I immediately sat up. “No office work?” I questioned.
“No, this is strictly hospital call, rounds, and reading studies.” I didn’t know such jobs existed.
“What is the salary, and what do you cover?” I asked trying to conceal the fact that Tony would have gladly paid her to get me off the couch.
Finding What Suits Me
If I’m honest, since my training days, hospital work is all I have ever wanted. I’ve always felt trapped by the imaginary timer that is part of every office visit. I found running a code less challenging than having to stand and end an office visit that might leave a patient wanting more.
On hospital days, there are no scheduled time slots. I can triage patients according to their needs. My deadlines are self-imposed: To have a morning coffee with Tony. To deliver the best care possible. To educate as much as time will allow. To beat the midnight clock, after which billing is a little more difficult.
I will soon begin my seventh year as an inpatient, acute-care cardiologist. Although I was flattered to be considered for full-time work, I couldn’t do that to Tony (who declined to move from Kentucky). We struck a deal that we’d travel to the same facility, where I work seven to nine jobs a year.
Tony golfs while I work and he jokes that he is a “real go-getter,” explaining that “I take her to work in the morning and then at night, I go get her!”
For those considering this line of work, it’s not for the faint of heart. My workday can stretch to over 16 hours. But I work in the best of hospital settings. On morning rounds, we present every single patient on the service. Our ER is staffed 100% of the time with at least four board-certified emergency medicine trained physicians. Everyone I work with shares a patient-first philosophy.
Because of this, I have quite easily ascended from Dante’s inferno. I am happy again in my professional life.
I know I’ll eventually have to retire for real, and I hope it will be at a time of my choosing and not enforced by the failings of modern medicine. I believe that these past few years will help ease that transition. And when that time comes, I’ll able to look back and know that I was blessed with a long and mostly satisfying career.
Until then, my magic erasers, colored pencils and gardening will have to wait.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tennessee. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I’ve tried to retire from medicine. Really. Proofs of my sincerity include a true retirement from performing procedures and the closing of two office practices. I even attended the wonderful retirement party my daughters threw for me.
I had great plans for my newfound leisure time. I purchased about a thousand colored pencils to map my family ancestry. I wore out many magic erasers in my cleaning efforts. I cajoled my husband, Tony, to help me build not one, but three, gardens in our yard. Upon realizing I had no more weeds or closets to conquer, I began a Dante-like descent into a dark abyss. I felt my sadness was justified. After all, I had immensely enjoyed my early medical life.
From Private Practice to Being Employed
I had a joint cardiology practice with the great Jim Whiteside, MD, in South Central Kentucky for 24 years. Our schedule was always bursting at the seams in the heart of tobacco country. We opened the first cath lab in our hospital, inspired the purchase of a new nuclear scanner, and expanded the stress echo lab. After a 6-year odyssey, we successfully championed primary PCI without surgery on site (along with Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center in Danville, Kentucky). As our services expanded, we remodeled to accommodate three cardiologists and two nurse practitioners. Simultaneously, we lobbied our city council and mayor to pass smoke-free legislation, a lightning rod topic in a culture still loyal to a burning weed whose worth had paled in comparison to the cost of its carnage. We were “running wide open” and believed that we were doing important work.
But then our forward-thinking, appreciative CEO and friend died suddenly, and the open communication and innovation seemingly vanished. Those events inspired my first “retirement.” After this, I became employed for the first time and was blessed once again with a wonderful partner and colleagues. But despite those blessings, the global practice of medicine had begun to change. Physicians were now seen by some as widgets; their worth measured in productivity. A few years in, I needed part-time work to care for my aging parents. My employer needed more, thus inspiring my second “retirement”.
My Second ‘Retirement’
My parents died within 4 months of each other in 2020. Suddenly, I was untethered from both my professional persona and role as caregiver. It was then that my sadness accelerated toward what seemed like the second circle of Hell, with many more to come.
To many, my sadness made no sense. Our accountant reassured us that we no longer “needed” to work, and I was (and still am) happily married to my high school sweetheart. Our beautiful daughters were healthy and thriving. Although I mouthed appreciation for my blessings in prayer, I could not prevent myself from sinking further.
My always supportive husband was worried. Tony had skipped happily into his retirement from teaching. He had hoped I would do that same. “You cannot sit on that couch and mope for the rest of your life,” he said, exasperated.
I thought about doing just that, until one day I answered a phone call to hear, “Doctor, have you ever been to Montana?” Before I could cut her off, the woman charged into the description of a job opening for a locums cardiologist. I immediately sat up. “No office work?” I questioned.
“No, this is strictly hospital call, rounds, and reading studies.” I didn’t know such jobs existed.
“What is the salary, and what do you cover?” I asked trying to conceal the fact that Tony would have gladly paid her to get me off the couch.
Finding What Suits Me
If I’m honest, since my training days, hospital work is all I have ever wanted. I’ve always felt trapped by the imaginary timer that is part of every office visit. I found running a code less challenging than having to stand and end an office visit that might leave a patient wanting more.
On hospital days, there are no scheduled time slots. I can triage patients according to their needs. My deadlines are self-imposed: To have a morning coffee with Tony. To deliver the best care possible. To educate as much as time will allow. To beat the midnight clock, after which billing is a little more difficult.
I will soon begin my seventh year as an inpatient, acute-care cardiologist. Although I was flattered to be considered for full-time work, I couldn’t do that to Tony (who declined to move from Kentucky). We struck a deal that we’d travel to the same facility, where I work seven to nine jobs a year.
Tony golfs while I work and he jokes that he is a “real go-getter,” explaining that “I take her to work in the morning and then at night, I go get her!”
For those considering this line of work, it’s not for the faint of heart. My workday can stretch to over 16 hours. But I work in the best of hospital settings. On morning rounds, we present every single patient on the service. Our ER is staffed 100% of the time with at least four board-certified emergency medicine trained physicians. Everyone I work with shares a patient-first philosophy.
Because of this, I have quite easily ascended from Dante’s inferno. I am happy again in my professional life.
I know I’ll eventually have to retire for real, and I hope it will be at a time of my choosing and not enforced by the failings of modern medicine. I believe that these past few years will help ease that transition. And when that time comes, I’ll able to look back and know that I was blessed with a long and mostly satisfying career.
Until then, my magic erasers, colored pencils and gardening will have to wait.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tennessee. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
I’ve tried to retire from medicine. Really. Proofs of my sincerity include a true retirement from performing procedures and the closing of two office practices. I even attended the wonderful retirement party my daughters threw for me.
I had great plans for my newfound leisure time. I purchased about a thousand colored pencils to map my family ancestry. I wore out many magic erasers in my cleaning efforts. I cajoled my husband, Tony, to help me build not one, but three, gardens in our yard. Upon realizing I had no more weeds or closets to conquer, I began a Dante-like descent into a dark abyss. I felt my sadness was justified. After all, I had immensely enjoyed my early medical life.
From Private Practice to Being Employed
I had a joint cardiology practice with the great Jim Whiteside, MD, in South Central Kentucky for 24 years. Our schedule was always bursting at the seams in the heart of tobacco country. We opened the first cath lab in our hospital, inspired the purchase of a new nuclear scanner, and expanded the stress echo lab. After a 6-year odyssey, we successfully championed primary PCI without surgery on site (along with Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center in Danville, Kentucky). As our services expanded, we remodeled to accommodate three cardiologists and two nurse practitioners. Simultaneously, we lobbied our city council and mayor to pass smoke-free legislation, a lightning rod topic in a culture still loyal to a burning weed whose worth had paled in comparison to the cost of its carnage. We were “running wide open” and believed that we were doing important work.
But then our forward-thinking, appreciative CEO and friend died suddenly, and the open communication and innovation seemingly vanished. Those events inspired my first “retirement.” After this, I became employed for the first time and was blessed once again with a wonderful partner and colleagues. But despite those blessings, the global practice of medicine had begun to change. Physicians were now seen by some as widgets; their worth measured in productivity. A few years in, I needed part-time work to care for my aging parents. My employer needed more, thus inspiring my second “retirement”.
My Second ‘Retirement’
My parents died within 4 months of each other in 2020. Suddenly, I was untethered from both my professional persona and role as caregiver. It was then that my sadness accelerated toward what seemed like the second circle of Hell, with many more to come.
To many, my sadness made no sense. Our accountant reassured us that we no longer “needed” to work, and I was (and still am) happily married to my high school sweetheart. Our beautiful daughters were healthy and thriving. Although I mouthed appreciation for my blessings in prayer, I could not prevent myself from sinking further.
My always supportive husband was worried. Tony had skipped happily into his retirement from teaching. He had hoped I would do that same. “You cannot sit on that couch and mope for the rest of your life,” he said, exasperated.
I thought about doing just that, until one day I answered a phone call to hear, “Doctor, have you ever been to Montana?” Before I could cut her off, the woman charged into the description of a job opening for a locums cardiologist. I immediately sat up. “No office work?” I questioned.
“No, this is strictly hospital call, rounds, and reading studies.” I didn’t know such jobs existed.
“What is the salary, and what do you cover?” I asked trying to conceal the fact that Tony would have gladly paid her to get me off the couch.
Finding What Suits Me
If I’m honest, since my training days, hospital work is all I have ever wanted. I’ve always felt trapped by the imaginary timer that is part of every office visit. I found running a code less challenging than having to stand and end an office visit that might leave a patient wanting more.
On hospital days, there are no scheduled time slots. I can triage patients according to their needs. My deadlines are self-imposed: To have a morning coffee with Tony. To deliver the best care possible. To educate as much as time will allow. To beat the midnight clock, after which billing is a little more difficult.
I will soon begin my seventh year as an inpatient, acute-care cardiologist. Although I was flattered to be considered for full-time work, I couldn’t do that to Tony (who declined to move from Kentucky). We struck a deal that we’d travel to the same facility, where I work seven to nine jobs a year.
Tony golfs while I work and he jokes that he is a “real go-getter,” explaining that “I take her to work in the morning and then at night, I go get her!”
For those considering this line of work, it’s not for the faint of heart. My workday can stretch to over 16 hours. But I work in the best of hospital settings. On morning rounds, we present every single patient on the service. Our ER is staffed 100% of the time with at least four board-certified emergency medicine trained physicians. Everyone I work with shares a patient-first philosophy.
Because of this, I have quite easily ascended from Dante’s inferno. I am happy again in my professional life.
I know I’ll eventually have to retire for real, and I hope it will be at a time of my choosing and not enforced by the failings of modern medicine. I believe that these past few years will help ease that transition. And when that time comes, I’ll able to look back and know that I was blessed with a long and mostly satisfying career.
Until then, my magic erasers, colored pencils and gardening will have to wait.
Dr. Walton-Shirley is a clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tennessee. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survey Study Shows How to Reduce Family Physician Burnout
Family physician burnout rates are among the highest in medicine. More than half (51%) reported burnout in a Medscape report from January 2024; only emergency physicians (63%) and obstetricians/gynecologists and oncologists (both 53%) had higher rates.
In a recent study, researchers examined what’s driving the burnout through a serial cross-sectional survey of family physicians. Authors conclude that reducing burnout may be most effective with a focus on two factors: Decreasing time spent at home on electronic health record (EHR) tasks and building stronger nurse-physician teams.
Findings by Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, MSc, Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues were published in JAMA Network Open. The findings debunk some longstanding assumptions, Christine A. Sinsky, MD, vice president of professional satisfaction with the American Medical Association, wrote in an editorial.
“This study advances our understanding that addressing physician burnout is not about more EHR training and not specifically about moving to paying for value; rather, it is about developing stronger nurse-physician core teams. These are novel and important findings with actionable lessons for physician and health system leaders,” Sinsky wrote.
More Than 10,000 Physicians; 100% Response Rate
The study included 10,315 physicians who answered questions related to burnout on the American Board of Family Medicine’s Continuous Certification Questionnaire between 2017 and 2023. Researchers achieved a 100% response rate by requiring diplomates to complete the survey before submitting their exam.
The median age of respondents was 50 years. More than half (57.8%) were employees, 11.3% were full owners of their practices, and 3.2% were contractors. Responses indicated that 10% practiced as solo physicians, 20.4% were in a practice with more than 20 physicians, and the rest were in a practice with 2-19 physicians. More than three fourths of the physicians practiced in an urban/suburban setting, and 13.5% practiced in a rural setting.
Physicians’ perceptions that EHR use at home was appropriate were associated with 0.58 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.53-0.64; P < .001), and high team efficiency was associated with 0.61 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.56-0.67).
Physician collaboration with a registered nurse was associated with greater odds of high team efficiency (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.22-1.50). Collaboration with a physician assistant was associated with greater odds of appropriate home EHR time (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24).
Numbers Needed to Treat
“When translated to a number needed to treat, these ORs suggest that eight additional physicians perceiving appropriate home EHR time would result in prevention of one additional case of burnout, and nine additional physicians perceiving high team efficiency would result in prevention of one case of burnout,” the authors wrote.
The authors also noted that EHR proficiency was not associated with burnout (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .12). Self-reported EHR proficiency remained high and steady over the study period.
“It is time to lay to rest the myth of the technology-resistant physician,” Sinsky wrote in the editorial. “The problem is not the end user.”
Sinsky said the findings also show that value-based compensation “is not a panacea” and, in fact, participation in such payment programs was associated with both more time working on the EHR at home and lower team efficiency.
Fee-for-service models are often painted as the culprit, she noted.
“The key in either compensation model is to direct sufficient financial resources to primary care to cover the costs of optimal team size, skill level, and stability. In my experience, this is a minimum of two clinical assistants (including at least one nurse) per 1.0 clinical full-time equivalent physician, with the same team of individuals working together on a daily basis to develop trust, reliance, and efficiencies.”
Medical Assistants (MAs) Replacing Nurses on Core Teams
In many cases, nurses have been replaced on core clinical teams by MAs, who, with a narrower scope of practice, put work back on the physician’s plate, Sinsky noted, and the MAs also often work in pools rather than with one physician.
“The result is that nurses in many settings are sequestered in a room with a computer and a telephone, with limited direct interactions with their patients or physicians, and physicians spend more time each day on tasks that do not require their medical training,” Sinsky wrote.
Strengths of the study include the large sample size, a 100% response rate to the survey, and consistency of findings over the 6 years.
Steven Waldren, MD, MS, chief medical informatics officer for the American Academy of Family Physicians, said the results of the study confirm what the organization knows to be true through various analyses and talks with doctors: “Even if you can just focus on documentation and improve that, it gives docs hope that other things can happen and actually improve. We saw a decrease in burnout in just solving that one problem.”
Team-based care also allows physicians to talk through challenges and off-load tasks, which allows them to focus on patient care, he said.
Waldren added that some technology upgrades can help reduce burnout without adding staff. He pointed to promising technology in managing EHR inbox messages and in artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for developing a visit summary and patient instructions that can then be reviewed by a physician.
He gave an example of ambient documentation. “We’ve seen that it reduces the amount of documentation time by 60%-70%,” he said. The products in this space record the physician-patient conversation and generate a summary to be reviewed by the physician for accuracy.
“These tools now are highly accurate,” he said. They are also able to remove clinically irrelevant details. He said, for example, if a patient talks about her recent golf outing on a trip to Ireland, the program will record only that she recently had an international trip to Ireland and remove the golf details. The technology has been available for many months, he said.
Sonia Rivera-Martinez, DO, an associate professor of family medicine at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, New York, said AI solutions are impressive but expensive, which is why her practice has not upgraded to AI-generated visit summaries.
She said even in her academic setting where there is less pressure to see several patients per hour, after-hours EHR work is a reality for her and her colleagues as seeing patients is paired with the demands of teaching students. Her practice is also part of an accountable care organization, which adds its own set of documentation demands.
Nearly 30 Hours a Week of EHR Work at Home
Rivera-Martinez estimated that she spends 20-30 hours each week doing EHR tasks at home and said the study authors have highlighted an important problem.
She said she has also seen the value of strong nurse-physician teams in her practice. The two nurses in her practice, for instance, know they have permission to administer flu shots and do other routine tasks without the physicians having to place the order. “But I can’t say it eliminates having to do work outside (of work hours).”
She said before current EHR documentation demands, “I used to be able to finish a progress note in less than 5 minutes.” Now, she said, with her medically complex patient population, it takes her 20-30 minutes to complete a patient’s progress note.
The findings of the study have particular significance with the rising prevalence of burnout among family physicians, the authors wrote. “Clinical leaders and policymakers seeking to develop care delivery models that enable sustainable primary care practice should focus on ensuring adequate team support and acceptable EHR workloads for physicians.”
This study was funded by the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, Rotenstein’s time was funded by The Physicians Foundation. Rotenstein reported personal fees from Phreesia; stock grants from serving on the advisory board of Augmedix; and grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, American Medical Association, The Physicians Foundation, and Association of Chiefs and Leaders of General Internal Medicine outside the submitted work. Nathaniel Hendrix reported grants from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported a cooperative agreement from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (now Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology). Another coauthor reported that the University of California, San Francisco, has received funding from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to partner with the American Board of Family Medicine to revise the survey over time to better capture interoperability. Sinsky, Rivera-Martinez, and Waldren reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family physician burnout rates are among the highest in medicine. More than half (51%) reported burnout in a Medscape report from January 2024; only emergency physicians (63%) and obstetricians/gynecologists and oncologists (both 53%) had higher rates.
In a recent study, researchers examined what’s driving the burnout through a serial cross-sectional survey of family physicians. Authors conclude that reducing burnout may be most effective with a focus on two factors: Decreasing time spent at home on electronic health record (EHR) tasks and building stronger nurse-physician teams.
Findings by Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, MSc, Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues were published in JAMA Network Open. The findings debunk some longstanding assumptions, Christine A. Sinsky, MD, vice president of professional satisfaction with the American Medical Association, wrote in an editorial.
“This study advances our understanding that addressing physician burnout is not about more EHR training and not specifically about moving to paying for value; rather, it is about developing stronger nurse-physician core teams. These are novel and important findings with actionable lessons for physician and health system leaders,” Sinsky wrote.
More Than 10,000 Physicians; 100% Response Rate
The study included 10,315 physicians who answered questions related to burnout on the American Board of Family Medicine’s Continuous Certification Questionnaire between 2017 and 2023. Researchers achieved a 100% response rate by requiring diplomates to complete the survey before submitting their exam.
The median age of respondents was 50 years. More than half (57.8%) were employees, 11.3% were full owners of their practices, and 3.2% were contractors. Responses indicated that 10% practiced as solo physicians, 20.4% were in a practice with more than 20 physicians, and the rest were in a practice with 2-19 physicians. More than three fourths of the physicians practiced in an urban/suburban setting, and 13.5% practiced in a rural setting.
Physicians’ perceptions that EHR use at home was appropriate were associated with 0.58 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.53-0.64; P < .001), and high team efficiency was associated with 0.61 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.56-0.67).
Physician collaboration with a registered nurse was associated with greater odds of high team efficiency (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.22-1.50). Collaboration with a physician assistant was associated with greater odds of appropriate home EHR time (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24).
Numbers Needed to Treat
“When translated to a number needed to treat, these ORs suggest that eight additional physicians perceiving appropriate home EHR time would result in prevention of one additional case of burnout, and nine additional physicians perceiving high team efficiency would result in prevention of one case of burnout,” the authors wrote.
The authors also noted that EHR proficiency was not associated with burnout (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .12). Self-reported EHR proficiency remained high and steady over the study period.
“It is time to lay to rest the myth of the technology-resistant physician,” Sinsky wrote in the editorial. “The problem is not the end user.”
Sinsky said the findings also show that value-based compensation “is not a panacea” and, in fact, participation in such payment programs was associated with both more time working on the EHR at home and lower team efficiency.
Fee-for-service models are often painted as the culprit, she noted.
“The key in either compensation model is to direct sufficient financial resources to primary care to cover the costs of optimal team size, skill level, and stability. In my experience, this is a minimum of two clinical assistants (including at least one nurse) per 1.0 clinical full-time equivalent physician, with the same team of individuals working together on a daily basis to develop trust, reliance, and efficiencies.”
Medical Assistants (MAs) Replacing Nurses on Core Teams
In many cases, nurses have been replaced on core clinical teams by MAs, who, with a narrower scope of practice, put work back on the physician’s plate, Sinsky noted, and the MAs also often work in pools rather than with one physician.
“The result is that nurses in many settings are sequestered in a room with a computer and a telephone, with limited direct interactions with their patients or physicians, and physicians spend more time each day on tasks that do not require their medical training,” Sinsky wrote.
Strengths of the study include the large sample size, a 100% response rate to the survey, and consistency of findings over the 6 years.
Steven Waldren, MD, MS, chief medical informatics officer for the American Academy of Family Physicians, said the results of the study confirm what the organization knows to be true through various analyses and talks with doctors: “Even if you can just focus on documentation and improve that, it gives docs hope that other things can happen and actually improve. We saw a decrease in burnout in just solving that one problem.”
Team-based care also allows physicians to talk through challenges and off-load tasks, which allows them to focus on patient care, he said.
Waldren added that some technology upgrades can help reduce burnout without adding staff. He pointed to promising technology in managing EHR inbox messages and in artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for developing a visit summary and patient instructions that can then be reviewed by a physician.
He gave an example of ambient documentation. “We’ve seen that it reduces the amount of documentation time by 60%-70%,” he said. The products in this space record the physician-patient conversation and generate a summary to be reviewed by the physician for accuracy.
“These tools now are highly accurate,” he said. They are also able to remove clinically irrelevant details. He said, for example, if a patient talks about her recent golf outing on a trip to Ireland, the program will record only that she recently had an international trip to Ireland and remove the golf details. The technology has been available for many months, he said.
Sonia Rivera-Martinez, DO, an associate professor of family medicine at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, New York, said AI solutions are impressive but expensive, which is why her practice has not upgraded to AI-generated visit summaries.
She said even in her academic setting where there is less pressure to see several patients per hour, after-hours EHR work is a reality for her and her colleagues as seeing patients is paired with the demands of teaching students. Her practice is also part of an accountable care organization, which adds its own set of documentation demands.
Nearly 30 Hours a Week of EHR Work at Home
Rivera-Martinez estimated that she spends 20-30 hours each week doing EHR tasks at home and said the study authors have highlighted an important problem.
She said she has also seen the value of strong nurse-physician teams in her practice. The two nurses in her practice, for instance, know they have permission to administer flu shots and do other routine tasks without the physicians having to place the order. “But I can’t say it eliminates having to do work outside (of work hours).”
She said before current EHR documentation demands, “I used to be able to finish a progress note in less than 5 minutes.” Now, she said, with her medically complex patient population, it takes her 20-30 minutes to complete a patient’s progress note.
The findings of the study have particular significance with the rising prevalence of burnout among family physicians, the authors wrote. “Clinical leaders and policymakers seeking to develop care delivery models that enable sustainable primary care practice should focus on ensuring adequate team support and acceptable EHR workloads for physicians.”
This study was funded by the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, Rotenstein’s time was funded by The Physicians Foundation. Rotenstein reported personal fees from Phreesia; stock grants from serving on the advisory board of Augmedix; and grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, American Medical Association, The Physicians Foundation, and Association of Chiefs and Leaders of General Internal Medicine outside the submitted work. Nathaniel Hendrix reported grants from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported a cooperative agreement from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (now Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology). Another coauthor reported that the University of California, San Francisco, has received funding from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to partner with the American Board of Family Medicine to revise the survey over time to better capture interoperability. Sinsky, Rivera-Martinez, and Waldren reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family physician burnout rates are among the highest in medicine. More than half (51%) reported burnout in a Medscape report from January 2024; only emergency physicians (63%) and obstetricians/gynecologists and oncologists (both 53%) had higher rates.
In a recent study, researchers examined what’s driving the burnout through a serial cross-sectional survey of family physicians. Authors conclude that reducing burnout may be most effective with a focus on two factors: Decreasing time spent at home on electronic health record (EHR) tasks and building stronger nurse-physician teams.
Findings by Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, MSc, Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues were published in JAMA Network Open. The findings debunk some longstanding assumptions, Christine A. Sinsky, MD, vice president of professional satisfaction with the American Medical Association, wrote in an editorial.
“This study advances our understanding that addressing physician burnout is not about more EHR training and not specifically about moving to paying for value; rather, it is about developing stronger nurse-physician core teams. These are novel and important findings with actionable lessons for physician and health system leaders,” Sinsky wrote.
More Than 10,000 Physicians; 100% Response Rate
The study included 10,315 physicians who answered questions related to burnout on the American Board of Family Medicine’s Continuous Certification Questionnaire between 2017 and 2023. Researchers achieved a 100% response rate by requiring diplomates to complete the survey before submitting their exam.
The median age of respondents was 50 years. More than half (57.8%) were employees, 11.3% were full owners of their practices, and 3.2% were contractors. Responses indicated that 10% practiced as solo physicians, 20.4% were in a practice with more than 20 physicians, and the rest were in a practice with 2-19 physicians. More than three fourths of the physicians practiced in an urban/suburban setting, and 13.5% practiced in a rural setting.
Physicians’ perceptions that EHR use at home was appropriate were associated with 0.58 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.53-0.64; P < .001), and high team efficiency was associated with 0.61 times the odds of burnout (95% CI, 0.56-0.67).
Physician collaboration with a registered nurse was associated with greater odds of high team efficiency (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.22-1.50). Collaboration with a physician assistant was associated with greater odds of appropriate home EHR time (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24).
Numbers Needed to Treat
“When translated to a number needed to treat, these ORs suggest that eight additional physicians perceiving appropriate home EHR time would result in prevention of one additional case of burnout, and nine additional physicians perceiving high team efficiency would result in prevention of one case of burnout,” the authors wrote.
The authors also noted that EHR proficiency was not associated with burnout (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = .12). Self-reported EHR proficiency remained high and steady over the study period.
“It is time to lay to rest the myth of the technology-resistant physician,” Sinsky wrote in the editorial. “The problem is not the end user.”
Sinsky said the findings also show that value-based compensation “is not a panacea” and, in fact, participation in such payment programs was associated with both more time working on the EHR at home and lower team efficiency.
Fee-for-service models are often painted as the culprit, she noted.
“The key in either compensation model is to direct sufficient financial resources to primary care to cover the costs of optimal team size, skill level, and stability. In my experience, this is a minimum of two clinical assistants (including at least one nurse) per 1.0 clinical full-time equivalent physician, with the same team of individuals working together on a daily basis to develop trust, reliance, and efficiencies.”
Medical Assistants (MAs) Replacing Nurses on Core Teams
In many cases, nurses have been replaced on core clinical teams by MAs, who, with a narrower scope of practice, put work back on the physician’s plate, Sinsky noted, and the MAs also often work in pools rather than with one physician.
“The result is that nurses in many settings are sequestered in a room with a computer and a telephone, with limited direct interactions with their patients or physicians, and physicians spend more time each day on tasks that do not require their medical training,” Sinsky wrote.
Strengths of the study include the large sample size, a 100% response rate to the survey, and consistency of findings over the 6 years.
Steven Waldren, MD, MS, chief medical informatics officer for the American Academy of Family Physicians, said the results of the study confirm what the organization knows to be true through various analyses and talks with doctors: “Even if you can just focus on documentation and improve that, it gives docs hope that other things can happen and actually improve. We saw a decrease in burnout in just solving that one problem.”
Team-based care also allows physicians to talk through challenges and off-load tasks, which allows them to focus on patient care, he said.
Waldren added that some technology upgrades can help reduce burnout without adding staff. He pointed to promising technology in managing EHR inbox messages and in artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for developing a visit summary and patient instructions that can then be reviewed by a physician.
He gave an example of ambient documentation. “We’ve seen that it reduces the amount of documentation time by 60%-70%,” he said. The products in this space record the physician-patient conversation and generate a summary to be reviewed by the physician for accuracy.
“These tools now are highly accurate,” he said. They are also able to remove clinically irrelevant details. He said, for example, if a patient talks about her recent golf outing on a trip to Ireland, the program will record only that she recently had an international trip to Ireland and remove the golf details. The technology has been available for many months, he said.
Sonia Rivera-Martinez, DO, an associate professor of family medicine at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, New York, said AI solutions are impressive but expensive, which is why her practice has not upgraded to AI-generated visit summaries.
She said even in her academic setting where there is less pressure to see several patients per hour, after-hours EHR work is a reality for her and her colleagues as seeing patients is paired with the demands of teaching students. Her practice is also part of an accountable care organization, which adds its own set of documentation demands.
Nearly 30 Hours a Week of EHR Work at Home
Rivera-Martinez estimated that she spends 20-30 hours each week doing EHR tasks at home and said the study authors have highlighted an important problem.
She said she has also seen the value of strong nurse-physician teams in her practice. The two nurses in her practice, for instance, know they have permission to administer flu shots and do other routine tasks without the physicians having to place the order. “But I can’t say it eliminates having to do work outside (of work hours).”
She said before current EHR documentation demands, “I used to be able to finish a progress note in less than 5 minutes.” Now, she said, with her medically complex patient population, it takes her 20-30 minutes to complete a patient’s progress note.
The findings of the study have particular significance with the rising prevalence of burnout among family physicians, the authors wrote. “Clinical leaders and policymakers seeking to develop care delivery models that enable sustainable primary care practice should focus on ensuring adequate team support and acceptable EHR workloads for physicians.”
This study was funded by the United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, Rotenstein’s time was funded by The Physicians Foundation. Rotenstein reported personal fees from Phreesia; stock grants from serving on the advisory board of Augmedix; and grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, American Medical Association, The Physicians Foundation, and Association of Chiefs and Leaders of General Internal Medicine outside the submitted work. Nathaniel Hendrix reported grants from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported a cooperative agreement from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (now Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology). Another coauthor reported that the University of California, San Francisco, has received funding from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to partner with the American Board of Family Medicine to revise the survey over time to better capture interoperability. Sinsky, Rivera-Martinez, and Waldren reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Building an AI Army of Digital Twins to Fight Cancer
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A patient has cancer. It’s decision time.
Clinician and patient alike face, really, the ultimate challenge when making those decisions. They have to consider the patient’s individual circumstances, available treatment options, potential side effects, relevant clinical data such as the patient’s genetic profile and cancer specifics, and more.
“That’s a lot of information to hold,” said Uzma Asghar, PhD, MRCP, a British consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital and a chief scientific officer at Concr LTD.
What if there were a way to test — quickly and accurately — all the potential paths forward?
That’s the goal of digital twins.
“What the [digital twin] model can do for the clinician is to hold all that information and process it really quickly, within a couple of minutes,” Asghar noted.
A digital twin is more than just a computer model or simulation because it copies a real-world person and relies on real-world data. Some digital twin programs also integrate new information as it becomes available. This technology holds promise for personalized medicine, drug discovery, developing screening strategies, and better understanding diseases.
How to Deliver a Twin
To create a digital twin, experts develop a computer model with data to hone its expertise in an area of medicine, such as cancer types and treatments. Then “you train the model on information it’s seen, and then introduce a patient and patient’s information,” said Asghar.
Asghar is currently working with colleagues to develop digital twins that could eventually help solve the aforementioned cancer scenario — a doctor and patient decide the best course of cancer treatment. But their applications are manifold, particularly in clinical research.
Digital twins often include a machine learning component, which would fall under the umbrella term of AI, said Asghar, but it’s not like ChatGPT or other generative AI modules many people are now familiar with.
“The difference here is the model is not there to replace the clinician or to replace clinical trials,” Asghar noted. Instead, digital twins help make decisions faster in a way that can be more affordable.
Digital Twins to Predict Cancer Outcomes
Asghar is currently involved in UK clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer to test the accuracy of digital twin programs.
At this point, these studies do not yet use digital twins to guide the course of treatment, which is something they hope to do eventually. For now, they are still at the validation phase — the digital twin program makes predictions about the treatments and then the researchers later evaluate how accurate the predictions turned out to be based on real information from the enrolled patients.
Their current model gives predictions for RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumor), treatment response, and survival. In addition to collecting data from ongoing clinical trials, they’ve used retrospective data, such as from the Cancer Tumor Atlas, to test the model.
“We’ve clinically validated it now in over 9000 patients,” said Asghar, who noted that they are constantly testing it on new patients. Their data include 30 chemotherapies and 23 cancer types, but they are focusing on four: Triple-negative breast cancer, cancer of unknown primary, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer.
“The reason for choosing those four cancer types is that they are aggressive, their response to chemotherapy isn’t as great, and the outcome for those patient populations, there’s significant room for improvement,” Asghar explained.
Currently, Asghar said, the model is around 80%-90% correct in predicting what the actual clinical outcomes turn out to be.
The final stage of their work, before it becomes widely available to clinicians, will be to integrate it into a clinical trial in which some clinicians use the model to make decisions about treatment vs some who don’t use the model. By studying patient outcomes in both groups, they will be able to determine the value of the digital twin program they created.
What Else Can a Twin Do? A Lot
While a model that helps clinicians make decisions about cancer treatments may be among the first digital twin programs that become widely available, there are many other kinds of digital twins in the works.
For example, a digital twin could be used as a benchmark for a patient to determine how their cancer might have progressed without treatment. Say a patient’s tumor grew during treatment, it might seem like the treatment failed, but a digital twin might show that if left untreated, the tumor would have grown five times as fast, said Paul Macklin, PhD, professor in the Department of Intelligent Systems Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington.
Alternatively, if the virtual patient’s tumor is around the same size as the real patient’s tumor, “that means that treatment has lost its efficacy. It’s time to do something new,” said Macklin. And a digital twin could help with not only choosing a therapy but also choosing a dosing schedule, he noted.
The models can also be updated as new treatments come out, which could help clinicians virtually explore how they might affect a patient before having that patient switch treatments.
Digital twins could also assist in decision-making based on a patient’s priorities and real-life circumstances. “Maybe your priority is not necessarily to shrink this [tumor] at all costs ... maybe your priority is some mix of that and also quality of life,” Macklin said, referring to potential side effects. Or if someone lives 3 hours from the nearest cancer center, a digital twin could help determine whether less frequent treatments could still be effective.
And while much of the activity around digital twins in biomedical research has been focused on cancer, Asghar said the technology has the potential to be applied to other diseases as well. A digital twin for cardiovascular disease could help doctors choose the best treatment. It could also integrate new information from a smartwatch or glucose monitor to make better predictions and help doctors adjust the treatment plan.
Faster, More Effective Research With Twins
Because digital twin programs can quickly analyze large datasets, they can also make real-world studies more effective and efficient.
Though digital twins would not fully replace real clinical trials, they could help run through preliminary scenarios before starting a full clinical trial, which would “save everybody some money, time and pain and risk,” said Macklin.
It’s also possible to use digital twins to design better screening strategies for early cancer detection and monitoring, said Ioannis Zervantonakis, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
Zervantonakis is tapping digital twin technology for research that homes in on understanding tumors. In this case, the digital twin is a virtual representation of a real tumor, complete with its complex network of cells and the surrounding tissue.
Zervantonakis’ lab is using the technology to study cell-cell interactions in the tumor microenvironment, with a focus on human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy resistance in breast cancer. The digital twin they developed will simulate tumor growth, predict drug response, analyze cellular interactions, and optimize treatment strategies.
The Long Push Forward
One big hurdle to making digital twins more widely available is that regulation for the technology is still in progress.
“We’re developing the technology, and what’s also happening is the regulatory framework is being developed in parallel. So we’re almost developing things blindly on the basis that we think this is what the regulators would want,” explained Asghar.
“It’s really important that these technologies are regulated properly, just like drugs, and that’s what we’re pushing and advocating for,” said Asghar, noting that people need to know that like drugs, a digital twin has strengths and limitations.
And while a digital twin can be a cost-saving approach in the long run, it does require funding to get a program built, and finding funds can be difficult because not everyone knows about the technology. More funding means more trials.
With more data, Asghar is hopeful that within a few years, a digital twin model could be available for clinicians to use to help inform treatment decisions. This could lead to more effective treatments and, ultimately, better patient outcomes.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Solo Vs McDoctors Inc.
STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.
For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.
Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.
After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.
I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.
I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.
I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?
Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).
It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.
The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.
I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.
There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)
But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.
At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.
Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.
In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.
I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.
But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.
For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.
Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.
After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.
I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.
I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.
I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?
Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).
It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.
The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.
I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.
There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)
But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.
At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.
Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.
In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.
I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.
But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
STAT News recently ran a series on UnitedHealthcare (UHC) and its growing physician empire. This includes the corporation pressuring its employed physicians to see more patients, work weekends, upcode visits, add in diagnoses that will increase reimbursement, yadda, yadda, yadda.
For legal disclaimer purposes, I’m not saying UHC did any of this, nor am I saying they didn’t. But the series on STAT is worth reading.
Reading the articles brings back memories of the last time I was an employed physician, 24 years ago. I didn’t have people telling me to upcode visits, but I do remember hearing terms such as “dollars per physician per square foot” bandied about concerning my performance. At least back then no one was going to yell at me about a 1-star online review from a disgruntled patient.
After a little over 2 years I’d had enough and went solo.
I have no desire at this point to go back to that. I certainly make a lot less money than my employed counterparts, but I also have time and a degree of peace, which are worth something.
I’m not paying for anyone else’s overhead. I don’t slack off, but at least I know what I’m working for, and where the money is going when I write out a check. I can work my schedule around having to take my dog to the vet, or pick a kid up at the airport, or whatever.
I can spend more time with the patients who need it. Isn’t that part of why I’m here?
Wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts to the office everyday is also a plus (at least I think so).
It surprises me that more physicians aren’t willing to go into solo or small group practice. The big advantage is freedom, only needing to pay the overhead and your salary, and cover for others when needed.
The downside is financial. Like our hunting and gathering ancestors, you eat what you kill. If there’s a shortfall in cash flow, I’m the one who doesn’t get paid. It’s always good to have a line of credit available to fall back on in a pinch.
I can see why it’s daunting. Coming out of training you have loans to pay off. You may have a young family, and your first mortgage. You sure don’t want to take out another loan to start a private practice. The security of a guaranteed paycheck and no start-up costs is attractive. I was there, too, and I also took the first job I was offered back then.
There’s also the fear of suddenly working without a net for the first time in your career. It’s reassuring to get some added experience while being able to bounce a challenging case off another doctor. (I still do that, too, and always will.)
But no one tells me to upcode visits or add diagnostic codes just to get more money. Patients don’t call in panicked that they have an ICD-10 code for a condition no one told them they had.
At the end of the day I can tell the guy in the mirror that I’m doing my best.
Medicine has changed a lot over time ... but being a doctor hasn’t. The spark that led us all here is still there, somewhere, I hope. Go back and read Neighbor Rosicky by Willa Cather, and The Doctor Stories by William Carlos Williams.
In an age when technology is moving us forward, I think the practice of medicine should move backward, away from McDoctors Inc. A small, even solo, medical practice isn’t incompatible with the shiny toys of 2024 medicine. You can make good patient care happen with both.
I freely admit that it’s not for everyone.
But I wish more people would see it as a realistic option, and take the road less traveled.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Digital Danger: How Cyberattacks Put Patients at Risk
On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.
In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.
In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’
Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”
Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”
Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.
The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
Vulnerable Users
Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.
“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”
Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.
High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients
Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.
According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:
- 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
- 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
- 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
- 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
- 28% had an increase in mortality rate
What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do
Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.
Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”
Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
A Continuing Threat
Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”
That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.
In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.
In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’
Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”
Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”
Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.
The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
Vulnerable Users
Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.
“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”
Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.
High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients
Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.
According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:
- 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
- 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
- 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
- 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
- 28% had an increase in mortality rate
What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do
Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.
Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”
Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
A Continuing Threat
Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”
That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On September 27, 2024, UMC Health System in Lubbock, Texas, experienced an IT outage because of a cybersecurity incident that temporarily diverted patients to other healthcare facilities. So far, in 2024, there have been 386 cyberattacks on healthcare organizations. These high-impact ransomware attacks disrupt and delay patient care.
In recent years, many healthcare systems, including Scripps Health, Universal Health Services, Vastaamo, Sky Lakes, and the University of Vermont, have paid millions — even tens of millions — to recover data after a cyberattack or data breach. When healthcare systems come under cyber fire, the impact extends far past disrupting workflows and compromising data, patient safety can be also be compromised, vital information may be lost, and imaging and lab results can go missing or be held for ransom, making physicians’ job difficult or impossible.
In fact, cyberattacks on hospitals are far more common than you may realize. A new report issued by Ponemon and Proofpoint found that 92% of healthcare organizations have experienced a cyberattack in the past 12 months. Even more sobering is that about half of the organizations affected suffered disruptions in patient care.
Healthcare Systems = ‘Soft Targets’
Healthcare systems are a “soft target” for hackers for several reasons, pointed out Matthew Radolec, vice president, incident response and cloud operations at Varonis, a data security company. “One, they’re usually an amalgamation of many healthcare systems that are interconnected,” said Radolec. “A lot of hospitals are connected to other hospitals or connected to educational institutions, which means their computer vulnerabilities are shared ... and if they have an issue, it could very easily spread to your network.”
Another factor is the cost of securing data. “[With hospitals], they’ll say that a dollar spent on security is a dollar not spent on patient care,” said Radolec. “So the idea of investing in security is really tough from a budget standpoint…they’re choosing between a new MRI machine or better antivirus, backups, or data security.”
Because of the wealth of private data and healthcare information they maintain, hospitals are considered “high impact” for cybercriminals. Attackers know that if they get a foothold in a hospital, it’s more likely to pay — and pay quickly, Radolec told this news organization. Hospitals are also likely to have cyber insurance to help cover the cost of having their data stolen, encrypted, and ransomed.
The 2024 Microsoft Digital Defense Report also found that the bad actors are more sophisticated and better resourced and can challenge even the best cybersecurity. Improved defenses may not be good enough, and the sheer volume of attacks must be met with effective deterrence and government solutions that impose consequences for cybercriminals.
Vulnerable Users
Whether through a phishing email or text, password attack, or web attack, “the moment a ‘threat actor’ gets into your institution and gets credentials ... that’s the Nirvana state of a threat actor,” warned Ryan Witt, chair of the healthcare customer advisory board and vice president of Industry Solutions at Proofpoint, a cybersecurity platform. “They have those credentials and will go into deep reconnaissance mode. It often takes healthcare up to 6 months to even ascertain whether somebody’s actually in the network.” During that time, the hacker is learning how the institution works, what job functions matter, and how best to plan their attack.
“Attackers are getting in because they’re buying databases of usernames and passwords. And they’re trying them by the millions,” added Radolec. “For a sophisticated actor, all it takes is time and motivation. They have the skills. It’s just a matter of how persistent they want to be.”
Certain hospital staff are also more likely to be targeted by cyberhackers than others. “About 10% of a healthcare organization’s user base is much more vulnerable for all sorts of reasons — how they work, the value of their job title and job function, and therefore their access to systems,” said Witt.
High-profile staff are more likely to be targeted than those in lower-level positions; the so-called “CEO attack” is typical. However, staff in other hospital departments are also subject to cybercriminals, including hospice departments/hospice organizations and research arms of hospitals.
The Impact of Cyberattacks on Patients
Physicians and healthcare execs may have considered cybersecurity more of a compliance issue than a true threat to patients in the past. But this attitude is rapidly changing. “We are starting to see a very clear connection between a cyber event and how it can impact patient care and patient safety,” said Witt.
According to the Proofpoint report, cyber breaches can severely affect patient care. In 2024:
- 56% of respondents saw a delay in patient tests/procedures
- 53% experienced increased patient complications from medical procedures
- 52% noted a longer patient length of stay
- 44% saw an increase in patient transfers to other facilities
- 28% had an increase in mortality rate
What Hospitals and Physicians Can Do
Fortunately, hospitals can take measures to better protect their data and their patients. One strategy is segmenting networks to reduce the amount of data or systems one person or system can access. Educating staff about the dangers of phishing and spoofing emails also help protect organizations from ransomware attacks. Having staff avoid reusing passwords and updating logins and passwords frequently helps.
Most hospitals also need more robust security controls. Physicians and healthcare facilities must also embrace the cybersecurity controls found in other industries, said Witt. “Multifactor authentication is one of those things that can cause us frustration,” he said. “The controls can seem onerous, but they’re really valuable overall…and should become standard practice.”
Doctors can also prepare for a ransomware attack and protect patients by practicing some “old-school” medicine, like using paper systems and maintaining good patient notes — often, those notes are synced locally as well as offsite, so you’d be able to access them even during a data breach. “It’s smart to write prescriptions on pads sometimes,” said Radolec. “Don’t forget how to do those things because that will make you more resilient in the event of a ransomware attack.”
A Continuing Threat
Cyberattacks will continue. “When you look at the high likelihood [of success] and the soft target, you end up with ... a perfect storm,” said Radolec. “Hospitals have a lot of vulnerabilities. They have to keep operations going just to receive income, but also to deliver care to people.”
That means that the burden is on healthcare organizations — including physicians, nurses, staff, and C-level execs — to help keep the “security” in cybersecurity. “We are all part of the cybersecurity defense,” said Witt. Helping to maintain that defense has become a critical aspect of caring for patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Telehealth Adoption in Primary Care: Reducing Low-Value Services
TOPLINE:
Increased telehealth use in primary care practices is associated with reduced rates of low-value cervical cancer screening and thyroid testing. No significant association is found between telehealth use and most other low-value care services.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022.
- A total of 577,928 Medicare beneficiaries attributed to 2552 primary care practices in Michigan were included in the study.
- Telehealth use was stratified into low, medium, and high tertiles based on the number of telehealth services per 1000 beneficiaries in 2022.
- Low-value care was assessed using eight claims-based measures relevant to primary care, grouped into office-based, laboratory-based, imaging-based, and mixed-modality services.
- Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between practice-level telehealth use and rates of low-value care services, controlling for practice-level characteristics.
TAKEAWAY:
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value cervical cancer screening (–2.9 services per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –5.3 to –0.4).
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value thyroid testing (–40 tests per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –70 to –9).
- No significant association was found between practice-level telehealth use and rates of other low-value care services.
- The findings suggested that telehealth can be used to deliver primary care services without introducing wasteful or unnecessary care and can even reduce low-value care.
IN PRACTICE:
“While the rapid growth of telehealth has enhanced access to care for individuals, it has also raised concern for unintended consequences in the form of wasteful or unnecessary care, ie, low-value care. Our study suggests that increased practice-level telehealth use was not associated with the delivery of low-value care services in primary care and may even help reduce office-based low-value care,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Terrence Liu, MD, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was performed among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a Michigan residence and may not be generalizable to the broader Medicare beneficiary population. Administrative claims data do not include clinical information, which limited the ability to measure overall quality of care. The study defined telehealth use at the practice level and did not assess individual outcomes. Additional research is needed at a national level to determine the impact of telehealth on low-value care services in primary care.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Liu received funding from the University of Michigan National Clinician Scholars Program and Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased telehealth use in primary care practices is associated with reduced rates of low-value cervical cancer screening and thyroid testing. No significant association is found between telehealth use and most other low-value care services.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022.
- A total of 577,928 Medicare beneficiaries attributed to 2552 primary care practices in Michigan were included in the study.
- Telehealth use was stratified into low, medium, and high tertiles based on the number of telehealth services per 1000 beneficiaries in 2022.
- Low-value care was assessed using eight claims-based measures relevant to primary care, grouped into office-based, laboratory-based, imaging-based, and mixed-modality services.
- Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between practice-level telehealth use and rates of low-value care services, controlling for practice-level characteristics.
TAKEAWAY:
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value cervical cancer screening (–2.9 services per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –5.3 to –0.4).
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value thyroid testing (–40 tests per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –70 to –9).
- No significant association was found between practice-level telehealth use and rates of other low-value care services.
- The findings suggested that telehealth can be used to deliver primary care services without introducing wasteful or unnecessary care and can even reduce low-value care.
IN PRACTICE:
“While the rapid growth of telehealth has enhanced access to care for individuals, it has also raised concern for unintended consequences in the form of wasteful or unnecessary care, ie, low-value care. Our study suggests that increased practice-level telehealth use was not associated with the delivery of low-value care services in primary care and may even help reduce office-based low-value care,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Terrence Liu, MD, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was performed among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a Michigan residence and may not be generalizable to the broader Medicare beneficiary population. Administrative claims data do not include clinical information, which limited the ability to measure overall quality of care. The study defined telehealth use at the practice level and did not assess individual outcomes. Additional research is needed at a national level to determine the impact of telehealth on low-value care services in primary care.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Liu received funding from the University of Michigan National Clinician Scholars Program and Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased telehealth use in primary care practices is associated with reduced rates of low-value cervical cancer screening and thyroid testing. No significant association is found between telehealth use and most other low-value care services.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022.
- A total of 577,928 Medicare beneficiaries attributed to 2552 primary care practices in Michigan were included in the study.
- Telehealth use was stratified into low, medium, and high tertiles based on the number of telehealth services per 1000 beneficiaries in 2022.
- Low-value care was assessed using eight claims-based measures relevant to primary care, grouped into office-based, laboratory-based, imaging-based, and mixed-modality services.
- Poisson regression models were used to estimate the association between practice-level telehealth use and rates of low-value care services, controlling for practice-level characteristics.
TAKEAWAY:
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value cervical cancer screening (–2.9 services per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –5.3 to –0.4).
- High practice-level telehealth use was associated with lower rates of low-value thyroid testing (–40 tests per 1000 beneficiaries; 95% CI, –70 to –9).
- No significant association was found between practice-level telehealth use and rates of other low-value care services.
- The findings suggested that telehealth can be used to deliver primary care services without introducing wasteful or unnecessary care and can even reduce low-value care.
IN PRACTICE:
“While the rapid growth of telehealth has enhanced access to care for individuals, it has also raised concern for unintended consequences in the form of wasteful or unnecessary care, ie, low-value care. Our study suggests that increased practice-level telehealth use was not associated with the delivery of low-value care services in primary care and may even help reduce office-based low-value care,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Terrence Liu, MD, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
This study was performed among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a Michigan residence and may not be generalizable to the broader Medicare beneficiary population. Administrative claims data do not include clinical information, which limited the ability to measure overall quality of care. The study defined telehealth use at the practice level and did not assess individual outcomes. Additional research is needed at a national level to determine the impact of telehealth on low-value care services in primary care.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Liu received funding from the University of Michigan National Clinician Scholars Program and Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Your Malpractice Insurer Investigates You: What to Know
When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.
“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.
The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.
“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ
Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.
When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.
When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.
The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.
Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.
Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.
“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.
If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.
Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.
If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?
The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.
Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”
If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.
“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”
Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.
Such conflicts could include:
- Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
- The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.
In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.
Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.
“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.
The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.
“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ
Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.
When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.
When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.
The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.
Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.
Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.
“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.
If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.
Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.
If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?
The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.
Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”
If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.
“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”
Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.
Such conflicts could include:
- Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
- The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.
In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.
Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.
“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.
The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.
“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ
Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.
When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.
When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.
The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.
Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.
Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.
“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.
If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.
Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.
If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?
The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.
Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”
If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.
“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”
Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.
Such conflicts could include:
- Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
- The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.
In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.
Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Rise of Sham Peer Reviews
While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.
They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.
Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.
This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.
“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”
“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.
Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.
The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.
“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”
Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.
“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.
After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.
The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.
“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.
York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.
“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review
Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”
Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”
Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”
Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.
Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.
“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”
Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.
“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.
They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.
Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.
This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.
“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”
“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.
Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.
The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.
“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”
Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.
“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.
After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.
The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.
“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.
York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.
“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review
Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”
Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”
Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”
Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.
Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.
“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”
Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.
“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While a medical peer review occurs once a patient, fellow doctor, or staff member reports that a physician failed to treat a patient up to standards or acted improperly, a “sham peer review” is undertaken for ulterior motives.
They’re typically undertaken due to professional competition or institutional politics rather than to promote quality care or uphold professional standards.
Physicians should be concerned. In a soon-to-be-published Medscape report on peer reviews, 56% of US physicians surveyed expressed higher levels of concern that a peer review could be misused to punish a physician for reasons unrelated to the matter being reviewed.
This is a troublesome issue, and many doctors may not be aware of it or how often it occurs.
“The biggest misconception about sham peer reviews is a denial of how pervasive they are,” said Andy Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which offers a free legal consultation service for physicians facing a sham peer review. “Many hospital administrations are as dangerous to good physicians as street gangs can be in a crime-ridden neighborhood.”
“Physicians should become aware of whether sham peer reviews are prevalent at their hospital and, if so, those physicians should look to practice somewhere else,” Schlafly said in an interview.
Unfortunately, there are limited data on how often this happens. When it does, it can be a career killer, said Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, who has run the AAPS sham peer review hotline for over 20 years.
The physicians at the most risk for a sham peer review tend to be those who work for large hospital systems — as this is one way for hospitals to get rid of the doctors they don’t want to retain on staff, Huntoon said.
“Hospitals want a model whereby every physician on the medical staff is an employee,” Huntoon added. “This gives them complete power and control over these physicians, including the way they practice and how many patients they see per day, which, for some, is 20-50 a day to generate sufficient revenue.”
Complaints are generally filed via incident reporting software.
“The complaint could be that the physician is ‘disruptive,’ which can include facial expression, tone of voice, and body language — for example, ‘I found his facial expression demeaning’ or ‘I found her tone condescending’ — and this can be used to prosecute a doctor,” Huntoon said.
After the complaint is filed, the leaders of a hospital’s peer review committee meet to discuss the incident, followed by a panel of fellow physicians convened to review the matter. Once the date for a meeting is set, the accused doctor is allowed to testify, offer evidence, and have attorney representation.
The entire experience can take a physician by surprise.
“A sham peer review is difficult to prepare for because no physician thinks this is going to happen to them,” said Laurie L. York, a medical law attorney in Austin, Texas.
York added that there may also be a misperception of what is actually happening.
“When a physician becomes aware of an investigation, it initially may look like a regular peer review, and the physician may feel there has been a ‘misunderstanding’ that they can make right by explaining things,” York said. “The window of opportunity to shut down a sham peer review happens quickly. That’s why the physician needs the help of an experienced attorney as early in the process as possible.”
If You’re a Victim of a Sham Peer Review
Be vigilant. The most important thing you should think about when it comes to sham peer reviews is that this can, indeed, happen to you, Huntoon said. “I’ve written articles to help educate physicians about the tactics that are used,” he said. “You need to be educated and read medical staff bylaws to know your rights before something bad happens.”
Stay in your job. No matter what, if you’re under review, do not resign your position, no matter how difficult this may be. “A resignation during a sham peer review triggers an adverse report to the National Practitioner Data Bank [NPDB],” Schlafly said. The NPDB is a flagging system created by Congress to improve healthcare quality and reduce healthcare fraud and abuse. “A resignation also waives the physician’s right to contest the unfair review. In addition, leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement is lost if the physician simply resigns.”
Get a lawyer on board early. This is the only way to protect your rights. “Don’t wait a year to get an attorney involved,” Huntoon said. But this also can’t be any lawyer. It’s critical to find someone who specializes in sham peer reviews, so be sure to ask about their experience in handling peer review matters in hospitals and how knowledgeable they are about databank reporting requirements. “Sometimes, doctors will hire a malpractice attorney with no knowledge of what happens with sham peer reviews, and they may give bad advice,” he said. “Others may hire an employment attorney and that attorney will be up on employment law but has no experience with peer review matters in hospitals.”
Given the seriousness of a sham peer review, following these guidelines can help.
Contact the AAPA right away. There are things that can be done early on like getting a withdrawal of the request for corrective action as well as obtaining a preliminary injunction. Preparing for the fallout that may occur can be just as challenging.
“After this situation, the doctor is damaged goods,” Huntoon said. “What hospital will want to hire damaged goods to be part of their medical staff? Finding employment is going to be challenging and opening your own practice may also be difficult because the insurers have access to data bank reports.”
Ultimately, the best advice Huntoon can offer is to do your best to stay one step ahead of any work issues that could even lead to a sham peer review.
“Try and shield yourself from a sham peer review and be prepared should it happen,” he said. “I’ve seen careers end in the blink of an eye — wrongfully.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On the Road to Care: Travel Nurses Still in Demand
Ashly Doran has worked at seven hospitals in four states since she graduated from nursing school in 2020. No, she isn’t job-hopping. Her travel nursing assignments have ranged from level 1 trauma center emergency rooms in big cities to small medical-surgical units in the suburbs. After each 13-week assignment, Doran packs up her belongings and her cats and moves to a new post.
“Travel nursing is so flexible,” she said. “I decide where I want to go and how much I want to make and start looking for travel contracts in that area.”
Nationwide nursing shortages have forced hospitals to hire travel nurses to fill staffing gaps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for travel nurses increased by 35%. While there is still a demand for nurses to fill short-term contracts, data show that demand has declined 42% between January and July 2022 and has continued the downward trend.
“What we’re seeing now is a shift…to a pre-pandemic market,” said Rachel Neill, RN, senior clinician advocate at Vivian Health. “Travel [nursing] is not going away — there will always be a need for hospital systems and facilities to fill gaps — but hospitals have shifted more into a traditional ... operational environment.”
Traveling a Different Path
For some registered nurses (RNs), short-term assignments offer opportunities to gain experience in different facilities or explore new locations before settling into permanent positions. Even experienced RNs embrace travel nursing for the flexible schedules and opportunities to take longer breaks between contracts.
Burnout and turnover among nurses are high, and flexible schedules, including controlling when to work, are essential to sustaining a clinical nursing career. In fact, 34% of nurses called travel nursing an “ideal option” for their lifestyle, with 14% viewing it as an option for career progression.
Travel nursing is especially appealing to Millennials and Generation Z, according to Brian Weirich, RN, chief nurse innovation officer at Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio. In fact, the average age of a travel nurse is 35 compared with an average age of 52 for all RNs.
These are generations that are more focused on reducing school loan debt and gaining experience, not 401(k) and health insurance, he said in an interview. Pay is also a factor. The average pay for travel nurses was $2588 per month, compared with $1375 for permanent staff nurses.
During the pandemic, Weirich recalls groups of nurses resigning to take travel assignments together. The RNs picked desirable locations, accepted short-term assignments, and moved together, “making top dollar in locations they wanted to explore with their best friends.”
It’s been more than a decade since Kelly Spurlock traded a permanent nursing role in Lake Placid, Florida, for short-term nursing contracts in intensive care units in 20 states.
Spurlock works with a recruiter at Ingenovis Health to secure new contracts and considers travel assignments “working vacations.” In the process of exploring new places and meeting new people, Spurlock believes that travel nursing allows her to prioritize patient care.
“I can be at the bedside and be an advocate for my patient but also keep out of the spotlight for the political part of what we do,” she explained.
The Road Ahead
The appeal of travel nursing is taking new nursing assignments in different cities and earning higher salaries, but there are downsides, too. Travel nurses often receive fewer benefits than staff nurses and end up with less favorable assignments; their levels of dissatisfaction and burnout are also higher, and their sense of work-life balance is lower than staff nurses.
Most travel contracts last between 4 and 13 weeks. Hospitals often put policies and practices in place that limit the number of back-to-back contracts that traveling nurses can accept, which means that RNs can either convert to core staff or move on to new assignments once their contract term is up.
Weirich noted that some hospitals devote considerable effort to recruiting traveling nurses to full-time roles, adding, “There are active initiatives ... to make it such a good experience that they want to stay.”
On the flip side, contracts can be terminated without notice, leaving traveling nurses scrambling to find a new assignment and a new place to live on short notice.
“You’re there as long as the hospital needs you,” said Neill. “You could sign a 12- or 15-week contract, and their needs change a month in, and ... there are budget cuts, and they can’t pay salaries anymore, so they are laying off their nurses.”
Declining demand for travel nurses has made it harder to line up back-to-back contracts. Despite being available for work, Doran once waited 6 weeks to secure a new assignment and had to live off her savings.
Spurlock believes increased competition and declining wages — pay for travel nurses declined more than 9% from January 2023 to January 2024 — have made travel nursing less attractive.
“There has been such an influx of travel nurses ... because of COVID,” said Spurlock. “The rates have now come down [and] everybody’s fighting for jobs, and ... it’s very difficult to get a job that’s paying decent money.”
Despite the challenges, Spurlock continues learning new things from each assignment and hopes to work as a travel nurse until retirement. Doran has worked at hospitals in Washington, Oregon, California, and Wisconsin and would like to add Montana, Utah, and Nevada to the list. The goal: Continue accepting assignments in different cities and states until she finds the place where she wants to put down roots.
“Nursing is a great job, but it’s a hard job [and] it can take its toll at times,” Neill said. It’s important that nurses know their goals and values to be able to find a good fitting position. “And the beauty of it is that travel can be a great way to explore and add some flexibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ashly Doran has worked at seven hospitals in four states since she graduated from nursing school in 2020. No, she isn’t job-hopping. Her travel nursing assignments have ranged from level 1 trauma center emergency rooms in big cities to small medical-surgical units in the suburbs. After each 13-week assignment, Doran packs up her belongings and her cats and moves to a new post.
“Travel nursing is so flexible,” she said. “I decide where I want to go and how much I want to make and start looking for travel contracts in that area.”
Nationwide nursing shortages have forced hospitals to hire travel nurses to fill staffing gaps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for travel nurses increased by 35%. While there is still a demand for nurses to fill short-term contracts, data show that demand has declined 42% between January and July 2022 and has continued the downward trend.
“What we’re seeing now is a shift…to a pre-pandemic market,” said Rachel Neill, RN, senior clinician advocate at Vivian Health. “Travel [nursing] is not going away — there will always be a need for hospital systems and facilities to fill gaps — but hospitals have shifted more into a traditional ... operational environment.”
Traveling a Different Path
For some registered nurses (RNs), short-term assignments offer opportunities to gain experience in different facilities or explore new locations before settling into permanent positions. Even experienced RNs embrace travel nursing for the flexible schedules and opportunities to take longer breaks between contracts.
Burnout and turnover among nurses are high, and flexible schedules, including controlling when to work, are essential to sustaining a clinical nursing career. In fact, 34% of nurses called travel nursing an “ideal option” for their lifestyle, with 14% viewing it as an option for career progression.
Travel nursing is especially appealing to Millennials and Generation Z, according to Brian Weirich, RN, chief nurse innovation officer at Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio. In fact, the average age of a travel nurse is 35 compared with an average age of 52 for all RNs.
These are generations that are more focused on reducing school loan debt and gaining experience, not 401(k) and health insurance, he said in an interview. Pay is also a factor. The average pay for travel nurses was $2588 per month, compared with $1375 for permanent staff nurses.
During the pandemic, Weirich recalls groups of nurses resigning to take travel assignments together. The RNs picked desirable locations, accepted short-term assignments, and moved together, “making top dollar in locations they wanted to explore with their best friends.”
It’s been more than a decade since Kelly Spurlock traded a permanent nursing role in Lake Placid, Florida, for short-term nursing contracts in intensive care units in 20 states.
Spurlock works with a recruiter at Ingenovis Health to secure new contracts and considers travel assignments “working vacations.” In the process of exploring new places and meeting new people, Spurlock believes that travel nursing allows her to prioritize patient care.
“I can be at the bedside and be an advocate for my patient but also keep out of the spotlight for the political part of what we do,” she explained.
The Road Ahead
The appeal of travel nursing is taking new nursing assignments in different cities and earning higher salaries, but there are downsides, too. Travel nurses often receive fewer benefits than staff nurses and end up with less favorable assignments; their levels of dissatisfaction and burnout are also higher, and their sense of work-life balance is lower than staff nurses.
Most travel contracts last between 4 and 13 weeks. Hospitals often put policies and practices in place that limit the number of back-to-back contracts that traveling nurses can accept, which means that RNs can either convert to core staff or move on to new assignments once their contract term is up.
Weirich noted that some hospitals devote considerable effort to recruiting traveling nurses to full-time roles, adding, “There are active initiatives ... to make it such a good experience that they want to stay.”
On the flip side, contracts can be terminated without notice, leaving traveling nurses scrambling to find a new assignment and a new place to live on short notice.
“You’re there as long as the hospital needs you,” said Neill. “You could sign a 12- or 15-week contract, and their needs change a month in, and ... there are budget cuts, and they can’t pay salaries anymore, so they are laying off their nurses.”
Declining demand for travel nurses has made it harder to line up back-to-back contracts. Despite being available for work, Doran once waited 6 weeks to secure a new assignment and had to live off her savings.
Spurlock believes increased competition and declining wages — pay for travel nurses declined more than 9% from January 2023 to January 2024 — have made travel nursing less attractive.
“There has been such an influx of travel nurses ... because of COVID,” said Spurlock. “The rates have now come down [and] everybody’s fighting for jobs, and ... it’s very difficult to get a job that’s paying decent money.”
Despite the challenges, Spurlock continues learning new things from each assignment and hopes to work as a travel nurse until retirement. Doran has worked at hospitals in Washington, Oregon, California, and Wisconsin and would like to add Montana, Utah, and Nevada to the list. The goal: Continue accepting assignments in different cities and states until she finds the place where she wants to put down roots.
“Nursing is a great job, but it’s a hard job [and] it can take its toll at times,” Neill said. It’s important that nurses know their goals and values to be able to find a good fitting position. “And the beauty of it is that travel can be a great way to explore and add some flexibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ashly Doran has worked at seven hospitals in four states since she graduated from nursing school in 2020. No, she isn’t job-hopping. Her travel nursing assignments have ranged from level 1 trauma center emergency rooms in big cities to small medical-surgical units in the suburbs. After each 13-week assignment, Doran packs up her belongings and her cats and moves to a new post.
“Travel nursing is so flexible,” she said. “I decide where I want to go and how much I want to make and start looking for travel contracts in that area.”
Nationwide nursing shortages have forced hospitals to hire travel nurses to fill staffing gaps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for travel nurses increased by 35%. While there is still a demand for nurses to fill short-term contracts, data show that demand has declined 42% between January and July 2022 and has continued the downward trend.
“What we’re seeing now is a shift…to a pre-pandemic market,” said Rachel Neill, RN, senior clinician advocate at Vivian Health. “Travel [nursing] is not going away — there will always be a need for hospital systems and facilities to fill gaps — but hospitals have shifted more into a traditional ... operational environment.”
Traveling a Different Path
For some registered nurses (RNs), short-term assignments offer opportunities to gain experience in different facilities or explore new locations before settling into permanent positions. Even experienced RNs embrace travel nursing for the flexible schedules and opportunities to take longer breaks between contracts.
Burnout and turnover among nurses are high, and flexible schedules, including controlling when to work, are essential to sustaining a clinical nursing career. In fact, 34% of nurses called travel nursing an “ideal option” for their lifestyle, with 14% viewing it as an option for career progression.
Travel nursing is especially appealing to Millennials and Generation Z, according to Brian Weirich, RN, chief nurse innovation officer at Bon Secours Mercy Health in Cincinnati, Ohio. In fact, the average age of a travel nurse is 35 compared with an average age of 52 for all RNs.
These are generations that are more focused on reducing school loan debt and gaining experience, not 401(k) and health insurance, he said in an interview. Pay is also a factor. The average pay for travel nurses was $2588 per month, compared with $1375 for permanent staff nurses.
During the pandemic, Weirich recalls groups of nurses resigning to take travel assignments together. The RNs picked desirable locations, accepted short-term assignments, and moved together, “making top dollar in locations they wanted to explore with their best friends.”
It’s been more than a decade since Kelly Spurlock traded a permanent nursing role in Lake Placid, Florida, for short-term nursing contracts in intensive care units in 20 states.
Spurlock works with a recruiter at Ingenovis Health to secure new contracts and considers travel assignments “working vacations.” In the process of exploring new places and meeting new people, Spurlock believes that travel nursing allows her to prioritize patient care.
“I can be at the bedside and be an advocate for my patient but also keep out of the spotlight for the political part of what we do,” she explained.
The Road Ahead
The appeal of travel nursing is taking new nursing assignments in different cities and earning higher salaries, but there are downsides, too. Travel nurses often receive fewer benefits than staff nurses and end up with less favorable assignments; their levels of dissatisfaction and burnout are also higher, and their sense of work-life balance is lower than staff nurses.
Most travel contracts last between 4 and 13 weeks. Hospitals often put policies and practices in place that limit the number of back-to-back contracts that traveling nurses can accept, which means that RNs can either convert to core staff or move on to new assignments once their contract term is up.
Weirich noted that some hospitals devote considerable effort to recruiting traveling nurses to full-time roles, adding, “There are active initiatives ... to make it such a good experience that they want to stay.”
On the flip side, contracts can be terminated without notice, leaving traveling nurses scrambling to find a new assignment and a new place to live on short notice.
“You’re there as long as the hospital needs you,” said Neill. “You could sign a 12- or 15-week contract, and their needs change a month in, and ... there are budget cuts, and they can’t pay salaries anymore, so they are laying off their nurses.”
Declining demand for travel nurses has made it harder to line up back-to-back contracts. Despite being available for work, Doran once waited 6 weeks to secure a new assignment and had to live off her savings.
Spurlock believes increased competition and declining wages — pay for travel nurses declined more than 9% from January 2023 to January 2024 — have made travel nursing less attractive.
“There has been such an influx of travel nurses ... because of COVID,” said Spurlock. “The rates have now come down [and] everybody’s fighting for jobs, and ... it’s very difficult to get a job that’s paying decent money.”
Despite the challenges, Spurlock continues learning new things from each assignment and hopes to work as a travel nurse until retirement. Doran has worked at hospitals in Washington, Oregon, California, and Wisconsin and would like to add Montana, Utah, and Nevada to the list. The goal: Continue accepting assignments in different cities and states until she finds the place where she wants to put down roots.
“Nursing is a great job, but it’s a hard job [and] it can take its toll at times,” Neill said. It’s important that nurses know their goals and values to be able to find a good fitting position. “And the beauty of it is that travel can be a great way to explore and add some flexibility.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.