Opinion

My first hospital consult was also on my first day of practice, in July, 1998.

I was in a small room, subleased from an oncology group. My schedule, as first day schedules are, was sparse.

Around noon one of the oncology docs asked me to come to his exam room, so I went across the hall. There he had a lady in her late 50s, with known metastatic cancer. He’d brought her in for a few days of worsening headaches and diplopia, and my 10-second neurological exam showed dysconjugate gaze and dysarthria. He said he was admitting her to the hospital, and asked if I’d consult on her.

I hung out in the hospital’s MRI control room later that day, waiting for her images to come up. I was nervous, maybe even a little scared. In spite of having survived medical school, residency, and fellowship, I was worried I’d screwed up the case, somehow. If the MRI was normal, I’d look like an idiot. My career would be over, on day one. No one would ever consult me again.

Of course, the MRI showed a brainstem metastasis (in addition to other places), and my initial differential was correct. Good for me, terrible for the patient. I ordered Decadron, called the oncologist, spoke to the patient and her family, and went home. I followed her for maybe a another few days, mainly because I didn’t know what the protocol was for signing off.

Self-doubt is common in all fields, especially when starting out, but probably strongest in medicine. A lot depends on us getting the right answer – quickly – in cases like that one. In my case this was compounded by its being my first day of practice. There was no attending I could call for help. I was working without a net.

But the years of training paid off, I got the case right, and moved on. Twenty-three years later it seems silly that I was so worried. Nowadays I order the MRI, move to the next patient, and try not to think about it until the results come back or a nurse calls with a status change. If my initial impression is wrong, I move down the differential list.

But questioning ourselves, then or now, is still critical. It helps us think of other possibilities, avoid mistakes, and do what’s right for our patients.

It’s what makes us better doctors.

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

My first hospital consult was also on my first day of practice, in July, 1998.

I was in a small room, subleased from an oncology group. My schedule, as first day schedules are, was sparse.

Around noon one of the oncology docs asked me to come to his exam room, so I went across the hall. There he had a lady in her late 50s, with known metastatic cancer. He’d brought her in for a few days of worsening headaches and diplopia, and my 10-second neurological exam showed dysconjugate gaze and dysarthria. He said he was admitting her to the hospital, and asked if I’d consult on her.

I hung out in the hospital’s MRI control room later that day, waiting for her images to come up. I was nervous, maybe even a little scared. In spite of having survived medical school, residency, and fellowship, I was worried I’d screwed up the case, somehow. If the MRI was normal, I’d look like an idiot. My career would be over, on day one. No one would ever consult me again.

Of course, the MRI showed a brainstem metastasis (in addition to other places), and my initial differential was correct. Good for me, terrible for the patient. I ordered Decadron, called the oncologist, spoke to the patient and her family, and went home. I followed her for maybe a another few days, mainly because I didn’t know what the protocol was for signing off.

Self-doubt is common in all fields, especially when starting out, but probably strongest in medicine. A lot depends on us getting the right answer – quickly – in cases like that one. In my case this was compounded by its being my first day of practice. There was no attending I could call for help. I was working without a net.

But the years of training paid off, I got the case right, and moved on. Twenty-three years later it seems silly that I was so worried. Nowadays I order the MRI, move to the next patient, and try not to think about it until the results come back or a nurse calls with a status change. If my initial impression is wrong, I move down the differential list.

But questioning ourselves, then or now, is still critical. It helps us think of other possibilities, avoid mistakes, and do what’s right for our patients.

It’s what makes us better doctors.

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

My first hospital consult was also on my first day of practice, in July, 1998.

I was in a small room, subleased from an oncology group. My schedule, as first day schedules are, was sparse.

Around noon one of the oncology docs asked me to come to his exam room, so I went across the hall. There he had a lady in her late 50s, with known metastatic cancer. He’d brought her in for a few days of worsening headaches and diplopia, and my 10-second neurological exam showed dysconjugate gaze and dysarthria. He said he was admitting her to the hospital, and asked if I’d consult on her.

I hung out in the hospital’s MRI control room later that day, waiting for her images to come up. I was nervous, maybe even a little scared. In spite of having survived medical school, residency, and fellowship, I was worried I’d screwed up the case, somehow. If the MRI was normal, I’d look like an idiot. My career would be over, on day one. No one would ever consult me again.

Of course, the MRI showed a brainstem metastasis (in addition to other places), and my initial differential was correct. Good for me, terrible for the patient. I ordered Decadron, called the oncologist, spoke to the patient and her family, and went home. I followed her for maybe a another few days, mainly because I didn’t know what the protocol was for signing off.

Self-doubt is common in all fields, especially when starting out, but probably strongest in medicine. A lot depends on us getting the right answer – quickly – in cases like that one. In my case this was compounded by its being my first day of practice. There was no attending I could call for help. I was working without a net.

But the years of training paid off, I got the case right, and moved on. Twenty-three years later it seems silly that I was so worried. Nowadays I order the MRI, move to the next patient, and try not to think about it until the results come back or a nurse calls with a status change. If my initial impression is wrong, I move down the differential list.

But questioning ourselves, then or now, is still critical. It helps us think of other possibilities, avoid mistakes, and do what’s right for our patients.

It’s what makes us better doctors.

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

As an esophagologist that does not perform fundoplication, LINX, or TIF, I find it difficult to debate the merits of one procedure over another based on my experience. In fact, I have always stated that it is difficult to assess a procedure or test that one has not used. That being said, maybe the fact that I have not performed these procedures makes me more objective and I can only use my experience with patients and the data to make the case that we need options beyond Nissen fundoplication.

The recent VA Randomized trial in refractory GERD published by Spechler and colleagues once again highlighted the fact that there are some patients that require a mechanical solution to reflux disease.¹ In this study, the authors carefully defined a patient population with refractory GERD and showed that Nissen fundoplication was superior to medical management in patients who did not respond to proton pump inhibitors. However, of the 27 patients who underwent fundoplication, one patient had major complications which required a repeat operation and prolonged hospital stay. These findings highlight the main problem with Nissen fundoplication. Dr. Watson elegantly argued in his assertion during our debate that Nissen and fundoplication are not the same. In this position, he was noting the side effects associated with Nissen fundoplication,² and he focused his argument on the comparison between a partial wrap versus LINX and TIF to level the playing field. On that note, I agree with Dr. Watson that a well-done partial fundoplication is a great option for patients with a mechanical problem.

Nonetheless, I think we have the capacity to do better than Nissen fundoplication, and thus, a safer standardized reversible surgical option and a less invasive endoscopic approach have great appeal. Redo operations have an escalating risk of severe debilitating consequences and we should do everything possible to reduce that risk.³ The LINX and the TIF procedure have data to support their effectiveness, and the initial studies suggest a more favorable side effect profile.^4,5 The ability to perform these procedures in patients with hiatal hernia and the fact that these approaches do not exclude the possibility of fundoplication in the future make them an attractive alternative.

In the end, more rigorous comparative studies should be performed to truly determine which approach is better. Although we have good surgical and medical options, we all recognize that they are not perfect and we should not settle on the current state of GERD management.

John E. Pandolfino, MD, MSCI, is the Hans Popper Professor of Medicine and Division Chief, Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. He disclosed relationships with Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Endogastric Solutions, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

References

1. Spechler SJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381[16]:1513-23.

2. Yadlapati R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug;113[8]:1137-47.

3. Singhal S et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Feb;22[2]:177-86.

4. Ganz RA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;14(5):671-7.

5. Testoni PA et al. Endosc Int Open. 2019 May;7(5):E647-E654.

As an esophagologist that does not perform fundoplication, LINX, or TIF, I find it difficult to debate the merits of one procedure over another based on my experience. In fact, I have always stated that it is difficult to assess a procedure or test that one has not used. That being said, maybe the fact that I have not performed these procedures makes me more objective and I can only use my experience with patients and the data to make the case that we need options beyond Nissen fundoplication.

The recent VA Randomized trial in refractory GERD published by Spechler and colleagues once again highlighted the fact that there are some patients that require a mechanical solution to reflux disease.¹ In this study, the authors carefully defined a patient population with refractory GERD and showed that Nissen fundoplication was superior to medical management in patients who did not respond to proton pump inhibitors. However, of the 27 patients who underwent fundoplication, one patient had major complications which required a repeat operation and prolonged hospital stay. These findings highlight the main problem with Nissen fundoplication. Dr. Watson elegantly argued in his assertion during our debate that Nissen and fundoplication are not the same. In this position, he was noting the side effects associated with Nissen fundoplication,² and he focused his argument on the comparison between a partial wrap versus LINX and TIF to level the playing field. On that note, I agree with Dr. Watson that a well-done partial fundoplication is a great option for patients with a mechanical problem.

Nonetheless, I think we have the capacity to do better than Nissen fundoplication, and thus, a safer standardized reversible surgical option and a less invasive endoscopic approach have great appeal. Redo operations have an escalating risk of severe debilitating consequences and we should do everything possible to reduce that risk.³ The LINX and the TIF procedure have data to support their effectiveness, and the initial studies suggest a more favorable side effect profile.^4,5 The ability to perform these procedures in patients with hiatal hernia and the fact that these approaches do not exclude the possibility of fundoplication in the future make them an attractive alternative.

In the end, more rigorous comparative studies should be performed to truly determine which approach is better. Although we have good surgical and medical options, we all recognize that they are not perfect and we should not settle on the current state of GERD management.

John E. Pandolfino, MD, MSCI, is the Hans Popper Professor of Medicine and Division Chief, Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. He disclosed relationships with Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Endogastric Solutions, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

References

1. Spechler SJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381[16]:1513-23.

2. Yadlapati R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug;113[8]:1137-47.

3. Singhal S et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Feb;22[2]:177-86.

4. Ganz RA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;14(5):671-7.

5. Testoni PA et al. Endosc Int Open. 2019 May;7(5):E647-E654.

As an esophagologist that does not perform fundoplication, LINX, or TIF, I find it difficult to debate the merits of one procedure over another based on my experience. In fact, I have always stated that it is difficult to assess a procedure or test that one has not used. That being said, maybe the fact that I have not performed these procedures makes me more objective and I can only use my experience with patients and the data to make the case that we need options beyond Nissen fundoplication.

The recent VA Randomized trial in refractory GERD published by Spechler and colleagues once again highlighted the fact that there are some patients that require a mechanical solution to reflux disease.¹ In this study, the authors carefully defined a patient population with refractory GERD and showed that Nissen fundoplication was superior to medical management in patients who did not respond to proton pump inhibitors. However, of the 27 patients who underwent fundoplication, one patient had major complications which required a repeat operation and prolonged hospital stay. These findings highlight the main problem with Nissen fundoplication. Dr. Watson elegantly argued in his assertion during our debate that Nissen and fundoplication are not the same. In this position, he was noting the side effects associated with Nissen fundoplication,² and he focused his argument on the comparison between a partial wrap versus LINX and TIF to level the playing field. On that note, I agree with Dr. Watson that a well-done partial fundoplication is a great option for patients with a mechanical problem.

Nonetheless, I think we have the capacity to do better than Nissen fundoplication, and thus, a safer standardized reversible surgical option and a less invasive endoscopic approach have great appeal. Redo operations have an escalating risk of severe debilitating consequences and we should do everything possible to reduce that risk.³ The LINX and the TIF procedure have data to support their effectiveness, and the initial studies suggest a more favorable side effect profile.^4,5 The ability to perform these procedures in patients with hiatal hernia and the fact that these approaches do not exclude the possibility of fundoplication in the future make them an attractive alternative.

In the end, more rigorous comparative studies should be performed to truly determine which approach is better. Although we have good surgical and medical options, we all recognize that they are not perfect and we should not settle on the current state of GERD management.

John E. Pandolfino, MD, MSCI, is the Hans Popper Professor of Medicine and Division Chief, Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. He disclosed relationships with Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Endogastric Solutions, and Medtronic. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

References

1. Spechler SJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381[16]:1513-23.

2. Yadlapati R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug;113[8]:1137-47.

3. Singhal S et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Feb;22[2]:177-86.

4. Ganz RA et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;14(5):671-7.

5. Testoni PA et al. Endosc Int Open. 2019 May;7(5):E647-E654.

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

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

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) recognizes the alarming impact of COVID-19 on the biomedical research community. The Institute has taken steps to address the pandemic’s immediate challenges, such as supporting COVID-19 research within its mission and implementing policies that ease grantees’ concerns about funding and lost time. The NIDDK has also sought to balance the needs brought about by the pandemic with its responsibility to continue research on the many diseases and conditions in the NIDDK’s purview. It remains committed to addressing the root biological, social, and economic causes of digestive diseases and to developing ways to combat these conditions.

The NIDDK continues to support most research through unsolicited R01 awards. It also continues to support organized consortia that aim to improve our understanding and treatment of digestive diseases; research centers that provide valuable sources of collaboration among researchers investigating digestive diseases and/or nutrition and obesity; and programs that encourage transitions to different career levels.

The pandemic has shown in stark relief the devastating impact of health disparities. Because many NIDDK mission diseases place disparate burdens on minority groups and people with limited resources, the NIDDK remains committed to combating health disparities, whether pandemic related or not. The Institute recruits diverse study cohorts inclusive of those most affected. It seeks to open doors for young people from underrepresented groups through training, support, and inspiration to pursue research careers, such as through partnerships with organizations like the American Gastroenterological Association. The NIDDK is also implementing strategies to promote participant engagement, not only as study volunteers, but also in study design, recruitment, and consent. And, importantly, the Institute is supporting research to identify the causes of health disparities, including research on social determinants of health.

This year, the NIDDK embarked on the development of a 5-year Strategic Plan to develop a broad vision for accelerating research on diseases and conditions across its mission. This plan is meant to be overarching and will complement the NIDDK’s disease-specific planning efforts. The first draft of the plan is currently being developed based on the input received from a Strategic Plan Working Group (which includes several AGA members), a public Request for Information, and NIDDK’s Advisory Council. The draft will be available through the NIDDK website (niddk.nih.gov) for public comment.

By taking these actions, the NIDDK aims to continue reducing the burden of digestive diseases and improving health for all people.

Dr. Rodgers is director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts. Dr. Rodgers made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) recognizes the alarming impact of COVID-19 on the biomedical research community. The Institute has taken steps to address the pandemic’s immediate challenges, such as supporting COVID-19 research within its mission and implementing policies that ease grantees’ concerns about funding and lost time. The NIDDK has also sought to balance the needs brought about by the pandemic with its responsibility to continue research on the many diseases and conditions in the NIDDK’s purview. It remains committed to addressing the root biological, social, and economic causes of digestive diseases and to developing ways to combat these conditions.

The NIDDK continues to support most research through unsolicited R01 awards. It also continues to support organized consortia that aim to improve our understanding and treatment of digestive diseases; research centers that provide valuable sources of collaboration among researchers investigating digestive diseases and/or nutrition and obesity; and programs that encourage transitions to different career levels.

The pandemic has shown in stark relief the devastating impact of health disparities. Because many NIDDK mission diseases place disparate burdens on minority groups and people with limited resources, the NIDDK remains committed to combating health disparities, whether pandemic related or not. The Institute recruits diverse study cohorts inclusive of those most affected. It seeks to open doors for young people from underrepresented groups through training, support, and inspiration to pursue research careers, such as through partnerships with organizations like the American Gastroenterological Association. The NIDDK is also implementing strategies to promote participant engagement, not only as study volunteers, but also in study design, recruitment, and consent. And, importantly, the Institute is supporting research to identify the causes of health disparities, including research on social determinants of health.

This year, the NIDDK embarked on the development of a 5-year Strategic Plan to develop a broad vision for accelerating research on diseases and conditions across its mission. This plan is meant to be overarching and will complement the NIDDK’s disease-specific planning efforts. The first draft of the plan is currently being developed based on the input received from a Strategic Plan Working Group (which includes several AGA members), a public Request for Information, and NIDDK’s Advisory Council. The draft will be available through the NIDDK website (niddk.nih.gov) for public comment.

By taking these actions, the NIDDK aims to continue reducing the burden of digestive diseases and improving health for all people.

Dr. Rodgers is director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts. Dr. Rodgers made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) recognizes the alarming impact of COVID-19 on the biomedical research community. The Institute has taken steps to address the pandemic’s immediate challenges, such as supporting COVID-19 research within its mission and implementing policies that ease grantees’ concerns about funding and lost time. The NIDDK has also sought to balance the needs brought about by the pandemic with its responsibility to continue research on the many diseases and conditions in the NIDDK’s purview. It remains committed to addressing the root biological, social, and economic causes of digestive diseases and to developing ways to combat these conditions.

The NIDDK continues to support most research through unsolicited R01 awards. It also continues to support organized consortia that aim to improve our understanding and treatment of digestive diseases; research centers that provide valuable sources of collaboration among researchers investigating digestive diseases and/or nutrition and obesity; and programs that encourage transitions to different career levels.

The pandemic has shown in stark relief the devastating impact of health disparities. Because many NIDDK mission diseases place disparate burdens on minority groups and people with limited resources, the NIDDK remains committed to combating health disparities, whether pandemic related or not. The Institute recruits diverse study cohorts inclusive of those most affected. It seeks to open doors for young people from underrepresented groups through training, support, and inspiration to pursue research careers, such as through partnerships with organizations like the American Gastroenterological Association. The NIDDK is also implementing strategies to promote participant engagement, not only as study volunteers, but also in study design, recruitment, and consent. And, importantly, the Institute is supporting research to identify the causes of health disparities, including research on social determinants of health.

This year, the NIDDK embarked on the development of a 5-year Strategic Plan to develop a broad vision for accelerating research on diseases and conditions across its mission. This plan is meant to be overarching and will complement the NIDDK’s disease-specific planning efforts. The first draft of the plan is currently being developed based on the input received from a Strategic Plan Working Group (which includes several AGA members), a public Request for Information, and NIDDK’s Advisory Council. The draft will be available through the NIDDK website (niddk.nih.gov) for public comment.

By taking these actions, the NIDDK aims to continue reducing the burden of digestive diseases and improving health for all people.

Dr. Rodgers is director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. He has no conflicts. Dr. Rodgers made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic, Pfizer and BioNTech announced plans to codevelop a potential mRNA-based vaccine to help prevent COVID-19. The mRNA platform was selected given its potential for high potency and capacity for rapid development. A bold decision was made to invest in R&D and manufacturing at risk.

Two candidates, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2, quickly emerged as most promising. After extensive review of preclinical and early clinical data and in consultation with regulators, we advanced BNT162b2 into a global, Phase 2/3 efficacy trial in July 2020.

The study prioritized participant diversity from the beginning, including selecting trial sites in communities disproportionally affected by COVID-19. Enrollment was later expanded to increase diversity, and also to include adolescents 12 and older and people with chronic, stable HIV, Hepatitis C, or Hepatitis B.

In November 2020, we announced the results of our ongoing Phase 3 study with BNT162b2 demonstrating a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after dose one. This result showed our ability to leverage decades of scientific expertise to execute a rigorous Phase 3 clinical program to make a potential vaccine available as quickly and safely as possible. The emergency use authorization that followed was a big step, but our research did not stop there.

Pfizer and BioNTech continue to evaluate data from the landmark trial, which ultimately enrolled 46,331 participants. We are also conducting trials in special populations, such as pregnant women and children under 12. To date, real-world evidence has demonstrated lower COVID-19 incidence in vaccinated individuals and has not shown escape of variant viruses from BNT162b2-mediated protection. Studies are ongoing to explore the effect of a third dose on immunity and to prepare in case a variant emerges that escapes protection.

We continue to identify improvements to increase production and are on track to deliver approximately 2.5 billion doses in 2021. Next generation ready-to-use and freeze-dried formulations are in development.

This pandemic sparked an unparalleled period of innovation, investment, and partnership with lessons learned that will help us prepare for future pandemics and accelerate R&D of therapeutic candidates for other debilitating and life-threatening conditions.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but has been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12+. See conditions of use: http://cvdvaccine.com

Dr. Dolsten is the Chief Scientific Officer and President of Worldwide Research, Development and Medical at Pfizer. He has no other conflicts. Dr. Dolsten made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic, Pfizer and BioNTech announced plans to codevelop a potential mRNA-based vaccine to help prevent COVID-19. The mRNA platform was selected given its potential for high potency and capacity for rapid development. A bold decision was made to invest in R&D and manufacturing at risk.

Two candidates, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2, quickly emerged as most promising. After extensive review of preclinical and early clinical data and in consultation with regulators, we advanced BNT162b2 into a global, Phase 2/3 efficacy trial in July 2020.

The study prioritized participant diversity from the beginning, including selecting trial sites in communities disproportionally affected by COVID-19. Enrollment was later expanded to increase diversity, and also to include adolescents 12 and older and people with chronic, stable HIV, Hepatitis C, or Hepatitis B.

In November 2020, we announced the results of our ongoing Phase 3 study with BNT162b2 demonstrating a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after dose one. This result showed our ability to leverage decades of scientific expertise to execute a rigorous Phase 3 clinical program to make a potential vaccine available as quickly and safely as possible. The emergency use authorization that followed was a big step, but our research did not stop there.

Pfizer and BioNTech continue to evaluate data from the landmark trial, which ultimately enrolled 46,331 participants. We are also conducting trials in special populations, such as pregnant women and children under 12. To date, real-world evidence has demonstrated lower COVID-19 incidence in vaccinated individuals and has not shown escape of variant viruses from BNT162b2-mediated protection. Studies are ongoing to explore the effect of a third dose on immunity and to prepare in case a variant emerges that escapes protection.

We continue to identify improvements to increase production and are on track to deliver approximately 2.5 billion doses in 2021. Next generation ready-to-use and freeze-dried formulations are in development.

This pandemic sparked an unparalleled period of innovation, investment, and partnership with lessons learned that will help us prepare for future pandemics and accelerate R&D of therapeutic candidates for other debilitating and life-threatening conditions.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but has been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12+. See conditions of use: http://cvdvaccine.com

Dr. Dolsten is the Chief Scientific Officer and President of Worldwide Research, Development and Medical at Pfizer. He has no other conflicts. Dr. Dolsten made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

Days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic, Pfizer and BioNTech announced plans to codevelop a potential mRNA-based vaccine to help prevent COVID-19. The mRNA platform was selected given its potential for high potency and capacity for rapid development. A bold decision was made to invest in R&D and manufacturing at risk.

Two candidates, BNT162b1 and BNT162b2, quickly emerged as most promising. After extensive review of preclinical and early clinical data and in consultation with regulators, we advanced BNT162b2 into a global, Phase 2/3 efficacy trial in July 2020.

The study prioritized participant diversity from the beginning, including selecting trial sites in communities disproportionally affected by COVID-19. Enrollment was later expanded to increase diversity, and also to include adolescents 12 and older and people with chronic, stable HIV, Hepatitis C, or Hepatitis B.

In November 2020, we announced the results of our ongoing Phase 3 study with BNT162b2 demonstrating a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after dose one. This result showed our ability to leverage decades of scientific expertise to execute a rigorous Phase 3 clinical program to make a potential vaccine available as quickly and safely as possible. The emergency use authorization that followed was a big step, but our research did not stop there.

Pfizer and BioNTech continue to evaluate data from the landmark trial, which ultimately enrolled 46,331 participants. We are also conducting trials in special populations, such as pregnant women and children under 12. To date, real-world evidence has demonstrated lower COVID-19 incidence in vaccinated individuals and has not shown escape of variant viruses from BNT162b2-mediated protection. Studies are ongoing to explore the effect of a third dose on immunity and to prepare in case a variant emerges that escapes protection.

We continue to identify improvements to increase production and are on track to deliver approximately 2.5 billion doses in 2021. Next generation ready-to-use and freeze-dried formulations are in development.

This pandemic sparked an unparalleled period of innovation, investment, and partnership with lessons learned that will help us prepare for future pandemics and accelerate R&D of therapeutic candidates for other debilitating and life-threatening conditions.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but has been authorized for emergency use to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 12+. See conditions of use: http://cvdvaccine.com

Dr. Dolsten is the Chief Scientific Officer and President of Worldwide Research, Development and Medical at Pfizer. He has no other conflicts. Dr. Dolsten made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

In July 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)/Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) proposed rules for calendar year (CY) 2022. While the OPPS/ASC proposed rule was largely positive for gastroenterology, the PFS proposed rule was more of a mixed bag for practices.

No more colonoscopy coinsurance “loophole”: After nearly a decade of advocacy, the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act was finally signed into law this year and will take effect Jan. 1, 2023. The legislation phases out Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing obligations when a polyp or lesion is found and biopsied or removed as part of a screening colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. The American Gastroenterological Association is pleased this will finally eliminate a surprise bill for patients and remove a barrier to colorectal cancer screening.

The phase out timeline is as follows:

• 80% payment for services furnished during CY 2022 (coinsurance, 20%).
• 85% payment for services furnished during CY 2023 through CY 2026 (coinsurance, 15%).
• 90% payment for services furnished during CY 2027 through CY 2029 (coinsurance, 10%).
• 100% payment for services furnished from CY 2030 onward (coinsurance, 0%).

Providers must continue to report HCPCS modifier “PT” in the hospital outpatient and ASC during the transition period to indicate that a planned colorectal cancer screening service converted to a diagnostic service.

Proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor could fall 3.75% unless Congress acts: The proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor is $33.58. The decrease reflects the expiration of the 3.75% payment increase provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. This congressional intervention averted a significant cut in Medicare physician payment that would have resulted in an almost 10% cut to GI services. The GI societies are working with Congress to avert cuts to physician payments next year as practices continue to recover from the pandemic.

GI procedure payments to increase 3% for hospital outpatient and ASCs: A 2.3% increase has been proposed for the conversion factors, resulting in $84.46 for hospitals and $50.04 for ASCs meeting quality reporting requirements. However, GI endoscopy procedure payments are expected to increase on average 3% in CY 2022.

Colon capsule endoscopy and POEM get new codes and payments: CMS accepted new CPT codes for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) beginning Jan. 1, 2022.

CMS’s proposed CCE value of 2.41 physician work relative value units (wRVUs) reflects the recommendation of the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee (RUC), which is based on data from physicians who perform the procedure. The proposed national-level physician payments are $116.52 for the professional component and $664.21 for the technical component.

However, CMS did not accept the RUC’s recommendation of 15.50 wRVUs for POEM and, instead, proposed that POEM is similar in work to hemodialysis access CPT code 36819, which has a wRVU of 13.29 and a payment of $792.82. The RUC’s valuation of 15.50 wRVUs was based on data from nearly 120 physicians who perform POEM, and we are disappointed CMS chose to reject the robust survey data. The GI societies will defend the 15.50 wRVU in our comments.

The proposed facility fee for POEM is $3,160.76 in the hospital outpatient setting and $1,848.32 in the ASC. CMS’s proposed facility fee for colon capsule endoscopy is $814.44 in the hospital outpatient setting.

CMS moves physicians to MVPs and plans to phase out MIPS: CMS proposes to revise and phase out the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and move physicians towards the MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) system beginning in the 2023 performance year (PY). No GI MVPs were proposed for PY 2023. The GI societies are working with CMS as they develop MVPs to ensure any gastroenterology-related MVPs do not harm gastroenterologists.

CMS is statutorily required to weigh the MIPS Cost and Quality performance categories equally beginning with PY 2022. The proposed PY 2022 MIPS performance categories are:

• Quality: 30%.
• Cost: 30%.
• Promoting Interoperability: 25% (no change from 2021).
• Improvement Activities: 15% (no change from 2021).

CMS is also required by law beginning in 2022 to set the MIPS performance threshold to either the mean or median of the final scores for all MIPS eligible clinicians for a prior period. CMS proposes to use the mean final score from MIPS 2017 performance year/MIPS 2019 payment year, which would result in a performance threshold of 75 points and an additional performance threshold set at 89 points for exceptional performance.

CMS keeps all AGA-stewarded measures in MIPS 2022 program year: CMS has proposed to keep all AGA-stewarded measures in the MIPS program for the 2022 program year and accepted the substantive changes for the one-time screening for hepatitis C virus measure we received last year from the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. CMS proposed removal of the claims reporting option of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy–stewarded measure for photodocumentation of cecal intubation because it is topped-out; however, the registry version is still available in MIPS.

OQR Program includes colonoscopy measure for disparities reporting: CMS has identified six priority measures included in the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program as candidate measures for disparities reporting stratified by dual eligibility, one of which is the Facility 7-Day Risk-Standardized Hospital Visit Rate After Outpatient Colonoscopy (OP-32).

The GI societies will jointly comment on issues in the 2022 PFS and OPPS/ASC proposed rules impacting gastroenterologists. We may also organize members to take action by submitting letters during the comment period, so watch your inbox for invitations to participate. We need your help to influence change.

Shivan Mehta, MD, MBA, is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is an AGA adviser to the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee. David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, is with the division of gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is the chair of the AGA Quality Committee. Neither have conflicts to declare.

In July 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)/Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) proposed rules for calendar year (CY) 2022. While the OPPS/ASC proposed rule was largely positive for gastroenterology, the PFS proposed rule was more of a mixed bag for practices.

No more colonoscopy coinsurance “loophole”: After nearly a decade of advocacy, the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act was finally signed into law this year and will take effect Jan. 1, 2023. The legislation phases out Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing obligations when a polyp or lesion is found and biopsied or removed as part of a screening colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. The American Gastroenterological Association is pleased this will finally eliminate a surprise bill for patients and remove a barrier to colorectal cancer screening.

The phase out timeline is as follows:

• 80% payment for services furnished during CY 2022 (coinsurance, 20%).
• 85% payment for services furnished during CY 2023 through CY 2026 (coinsurance, 15%).
• 90% payment for services furnished during CY 2027 through CY 2029 (coinsurance, 10%).
• 100% payment for services furnished from CY 2030 onward (coinsurance, 0%).

Providers must continue to report HCPCS modifier “PT” in the hospital outpatient and ASC during the transition period to indicate that a planned colorectal cancer screening service converted to a diagnostic service.

Proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor could fall 3.75% unless Congress acts: The proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor is $33.58. The decrease reflects the expiration of the 3.75% payment increase provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. This congressional intervention averted a significant cut in Medicare physician payment that would have resulted in an almost 10% cut to GI services. The GI societies are working with Congress to avert cuts to physician payments next year as practices continue to recover from the pandemic.

GI procedure payments to increase 3% for hospital outpatient and ASCs: A 2.3% increase has been proposed for the conversion factors, resulting in $84.46 for hospitals and $50.04 for ASCs meeting quality reporting requirements. However, GI endoscopy procedure payments are expected to increase on average 3% in CY 2022.

Colon capsule endoscopy and POEM get new codes and payments: CMS accepted new CPT codes for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) beginning Jan. 1, 2022.

CMS’s proposed CCE value of 2.41 physician work relative value units (wRVUs) reflects the recommendation of the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee (RUC), which is based on data from physicians who perform the procedure. The proposed national-level physician payments are $116.52 for the professional component and $664.21 for the technical component.

However, CMS did not accept the RUC’s recommendation of 15.50 wRVUs for POEM and, instead, proposed that POEM is similar in work to hemodialysis access CPT code 36819, which has a wRVU of 13.29 and a payment of $792.82. The RUC’s valuation of 15.50 wRVUs was based on data from nearly 120 physicians who perform POEM, and we are disappointed CMS chose to reject the robust survey data. The GI societies will defend the 15.50 wRVU in our comments.

The proposed facility fee for POEM is $3,160.76 in the hospital outpatient setting and $1,848.32 in the ASC. CMS’s proposed facility fee for colon capsule endoscopy is $814.44 in the hospital outpatient setting.

CMS moves physicians to MVPs and plans to phase out MIPS: CMS proposes to revise and phase out the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and move physicians towards the MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) system beginning in the 2023 performance year (PY). No GI MVPs were proposed for PY 2023. The GI societies are working with CMS as they develop MVPs to ensure any gastroenterology-related MVPs do not harm gastroenterologists.

CMS is statutorily required to weigh the MIPS Cost and Quality performance categories equally beginning with PY 2022. The proposed PY 2022 MIPS performance categories are:

• Quality: 30%.
• Cost: 30%.
• Promoting Interoperability: 25% (no change from 2021).
• Improvement Activities: 15% (no change from 2021).

CMS is also required by law beginning in 2022 to set the MIPS performance threshold to either the mean or median of the final scores for all MIPS eligible clinicians for a prior period. CMS proposes to use the mean final score from MIPS 2017 performance year/MIPS 2019 payment year, which would result in a performance threshold of 75 points and an additional performance threshold set at 89 points for exceptional performance.

CMS keeps all AGA-stewarded measures in MIPS 2022 program year: CMS has proposed to keep all AGA-stewarded measures in the MIPS program for the 2022 program year and accepted the substantive changes for the one-time screening for hepatitis C virus measure we received last year from the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. CMS proposed removal of the claims reporting option of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy–stewarded measure for photodocumentation of cecal intubation because it is topped-out; however, the registry version is still available in MIPS.

OQR Program includes colonoscopy measure for disparities reporting: CMS has identified six priority measures included in the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program as candidate measures for disparities reporting stratified by dual eligibility, one of which is the Facility 7-Day Risk-Standardized Hospital Visit Rate After Outpatient Colonoscopy (OP-32).

The GI societies will jointly comment on issues in the 2022 PFS and OPPS/ASC proposed rules impacting gastroenterologists. We may also organize members to take action by submitting letters during the comment period, so watch your inbox for invitations to participate. We need your help to influence change.

Shivan Mehta, MD, MBA, is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is an AGA adviser to the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee. David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, is with the division of gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is the chair of the AGA Quality Committee. Neither have conflicts to declare.

In July 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS)/Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) proposed rules for calendar year (CY) 2022. While the OPPS/ASC proposed rule was largely positive for gastroenterology, the PFS proposed rule was more of a mixed bag for practices.

No more colonoscopy coinsurance “loophole”: After nearly a decade of advocacy, the Removing Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Act was finally signed into law this year and will take effect Jan. 1, 2023. The legislation phases out Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing obligations when a polyp or lesion is found and biopsied or removed as part of a screening colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy. The American Gastroenterological Association is pleased this will finally eliminate a surprise bill for patients and remove a barrier to colorectal cancer screening.

The phase out timeline is as follows:

• 80% payment for services furnished during CY 2022 (coinsurance, 20%).
• 85% payment for services furnished during CY 2023 through CY 2026 (coinsurance, 15%).
• 90% payment for services furnished during CY 2027 through CY 2029 (coinsurance, 10%).
• 100% payment for services furnished from CY 2030 onward (coinsurance, 0%).

Providers must continue to report HCPCS modifier “PT” in the hospital outpatient and ASC during the transition period to indicate that a planned colorectal cancer screening service converted to a diagnostic service.

Proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor could fall 3.75% unless Congress acts: The proposed 2022 PFS conversion factor is $33.58. The decrease reflects the expiration of the 3.75% payment increase provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. This congressional intervention averted a significant cut in Medicare physician payment that would have resulted in an almost 10% cut to GI services. The GI societies are working with Congress to avert cuts to physician payments next year as practices continue to recover from the pandemic.

GI procedure payments to increase 3% for hospital outpatient and ASCs: A 2.3% increase has been proposed for the conversion factors, resulting in $84.46 for hospitals and $50.04 for ASCs meeting quality reporting requirements. However, GI endoscopy procedure payments are expected to increase on average 3% in CY 2022.

Colon capsule endoscopy and POEM get new codes and payments: CMS accepted new CPT codes for colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) beginning Jan. 1, 2022.

CMS’s proposed CCE value of 2.41 physician work relative value units (wRVUs) reflects the recommendation of the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee (RUC), which is based on data from physicians who perform the procedure. The proposed national-level physician payments are $116.52 for the professional component and $664.21 for the technical component.

However, CMS did not accept the RUC’s recommendation of 15.50 wRVUs for POEM and, instead, proposed that POEM is similar in work to hemodialysis access CPT code 36819, which has a wRVU of 13.29 and a payment of $792.82. The RUC’s valuation of 15.50 wRVUs was based on data from nearly 120 physicians who perform POEM, and we are disappointed CMS chose to reject the robust survey data. The GI societies will defend the 15.50 wRVU in our comments.

The proposed facility fee for POEM is $3,160.76 in the hospital outpatient setting and $1,848.32 in the ASC. CMS’s proposed facility fee for colon capsule endoscopy is $814.44 in the hospital outpatient setting.

CMS moves physicians to MVPs and plans to phase out MIPS: CMS proposes to revise and phase out the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and move physicians towards the MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) system beginning in the 2023 performance year (PY). No GI MVPs were proposed for PY 2023. The GI societies are working with CMS as they develop MVPs to ensure any gastroenterology-related MVPs do not harm gastroenterologists.

CMS is statutorily required to weigh the MIPS Cost and Quality performance categories equally beginning with PY 2022. The proposed PY 2022 MIPS performance categories are:

• Quality: 30%.
• Cost: 30%.
• Promoting Interoperability: 25% (no change from 2021).
• Improvement Activities: 15% (no change from 2021).

CMS is also required by law beginning in 2022 to set the MIPS performance threshold to either the mean or median of the final scores for all MIPS eligible clinicians for a prior period. CMS proposes to use the mean final score from MIPS 2017 performance year/MIPS 2019 payment year, which would result in a performance threshold of 75 points and an additional performance threshold set at 89 points for exceptional performance.

CMS keeps all AGA-stewarded measures in MIPS 2022 program year: CMS has proposed to keep all AGA-stewarded measures in the MIPS program for the 2022 program year and accepted the substantive changes for the one-time screening for hepatitis C virus measure we received last year from the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. CMS proposed removal of the claims reporting option of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy–stewarded measure for photodocumentation of cecal intubation because it is topped-out; however, the registry version is still available in MIPS.

OQR Program includes colonoscopy measure for disparities reporting: CMS has identified six priority measures included in the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program as candidate measures for disparities reporting stratified by dual eligibility, one of which is the Facility 7-Day Risk-Standardized Hospital Visit Rate After Outpatient Colonoscopy (OP-32).

The GI societies will jointly comment on issues in the 2022 PFS and OPPS/ASC proposed rules impacting gastroenterologists. We may also organize members to take action by submitting letters during the comment period, so watch your inbox for invitations to participate. We need your help to influence change.

Shivan Mehta, MD, MBA, is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is an AGA adviser to the American Medical Association RVS Update Committee. David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, is with the division of gastroenterology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is the chair of the AGA Quality Committee. Neither have conflicts to declare.

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With the number of pediatric infections with SARS-CoV-2 rising it is not surprising that children with persistent symptoms are beginning to accumulate. Who are these pediatric “long haulers” and do they differ from their adult counterparts? The answer is far from clear because the terms “long COVID” and “long hauler” are not well defined. But, I suspect we will find that they will be similar in most respects.

In a recent Guest Essay in the New York Times, two medical school professors attempt to inject some common sense into the long hauler phenomenon. (“The Truth About Long Covid is Complicated. Better Treatment Isn’t,” Adam Gaffney and Zackary Berger, The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2021).

The authors divide the patients with long COVID into three categories. The first includes those who are complaining of persistent cough and fatigue for up to 3 months, a not unexpected course for patients recovering from a significant respiratory illness like pneumonia.

The second group comprises patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome during the course of their SARS-CoV-2 infection. These unfortunate individuals likely incurred lung damage that may have triggered renal damage and delirium and may never regain full function.

The third group of patients reports a wide variety of less specific symptoms including, but not limited to, severe fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, gastrointestinal symptoms, chronic pain, and palpitations.

The authors of the essay refer to several studies in which there was little if any correlation between these patients’ complaints and their antibody levels. In fact, one study of adolescents found that in a group with similar symptoms many of the individuals had no serologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unfortunately, the lay public, the media, and some physicians make no distinction between these three groups and lump them all under the same long COVID umbrella. The resulting confusion seeds unwarranted anxiety among the first and third groups and may prevent some individuals from receiving the appropriate attention they deserve.

I suspect that like me, many of you see some similarities between this third group of long COVID patients and adolescents whose persistent symptoms don’t quite fit with their primary illness. Patients labeled as having post-concussion syndrome or “chronic Lyme disease” come immediately to mind. In both conditions, many of the patients had little if any evidence of severe insult from the initial event but continue to complain about a variety of symptoms including severe fatigue and brain fog.

We have done a very poor job of properly managing these patients. And there are a lot of them. A large part of the problem is labeling. In the old days one might have said these patients were having “psychosomatic” symptoms. But, while it may be an accurate description, like the term “retardation” it has been permanently tarnished. Fortunately, most of us are smart enough to avoid telling these patients that it is all in their heads.

However, convincing an individual that many of his symptoms may be the result of the psychological insult from the original disease compounded by other stresses and lifestyle factors can be a difficult sell. The task is made particularly difficult when there continue to be physicians who will miss or ignore the obvious and embark on therapeutic endeavors that are not only ineffective but can serve as a distraction from the real work of listening to and engaging these patients whose suffering may be just as real as that of those long haulers with structural damage.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I’ve become kind of a hermit. At least, as much as someone who drives a car, goes to the store, and sees patients 5 days a week can be.

It seemed like the news was always dominated by another senseless mass shooting, an increasingly dysfunctional government, an environmental crisis going to hell (with us along for the ride), and endlessly escalating inflammatory political pundits (who always seem to get far more coverage than they deserve. Personally, I don’t think they deserve any, regardless of which side they’re on).

As things got worse, I became more obsessed with reading about them. I’d read the news on my iPad before bed, and when I first woke up, and several times a day at work.

It was driving me nuts. Perhaps it’s my personality to worry too much about these things. I was losing sleep and wasting valuable time at home and work.

I came to a decision. It was time to stop.

I deleted all my news apps and bookmarks. I’d go to lengths to avoid all news. If in a restaurant where a TV was on, I’d sit with my back to it. I stopped going to the doctor’s lounge (with its TVs constantly on a news network). When I had to wait to pick up my car at the shop, I sat outside and played games on my phone rather than use the waiting room with its blaring TV.

I just walked away from the 24/7 news cycle. And you know what? I’m happier now.

This doesn’t mean I’m completely unplugged. I still read interesting stories about science or history. I check the weather forecast. Family members occasionally send me amusing articles that I look at. I read online medical articles. I use the Internet to look things up. But I make a conscious effort not to look at headlines or other stuff on the periphery.

I’m not stupid or naive enough to believe that the insanity and acrimony won’t continue happening. But the bottom line is that obviously I can’t control or change it.

So I try not to let it upset me any more. If the only way to do that is to completely not read it and not know, I’m fine with that. After almost 50 years of reading news (I started when I was about 7, with my parent’s subscription to Newsweek), I’ve completely stopped.

Instead of reading the day’s events I now mindlessly play Toon Blast or read history books on my iPad before bed. Perhaps a waste of time, but no more so than getting upset, losing sleep, getting ulcers, and going gray over things I can’t control.

I have more time in the morning and my work day, since I’m not spending it scanning headlines.

Now my world is restricted to my family, friends, dogs, and job. Things I enjoy and have control over. Those around me have been told that I wish to discuss nothing about current events, and they respect that.

Now I sleep better, worry less (at least about those things), and have more time to focus on my immediate world. And that’s fine with me. It may be the way of the ostrich, but at this point in my life, that’s what I prefer.

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

I’ve become kind of a hermit. At least, as much as someone who drives a car, goes to the store, and sees patients 5 days a week can be.

It seemed like the news was always dominated by another senseless mass shooting, an increasingly dysfunctional government, an environmental crisis going to hell (with us along for the ride), and endlessly escalating inflammatory political pundits (who always seem to get far more coverage than they deserve. Personally, I don’t think they deserve any, regardless of which side they’re on).

As things got worse, I became more obsessed with reading about them. I’d read the news on my iPad before bed, and when I first woke up, and several times a day at work.

It was driving me nuts. Perhaps it’s my personality to worry too much about these things. I was losing sleep and wasting valuable time at home and work.

I came to a decision. It was time to stop.

I deleted all my news apps and bookmarks. I’d go to lengths to avoid all news. If in a restaurant where a TV was on, I’d sit with my back to it. I stopped going to the doctor’s lounge (with its TVs constantly on a news network). When I had to wait to pick up my car at the shop, I sat outside and played games on my phone rather than use the waiting room with its blaring TV.

I just walked away from the 24/7 news cycle. And you know what? I’m happier now.

This doesn’t mean I’m completely unplugged. I still read interesting stories about science or history. I check the weather forecast. Family members occasionally send me amusing articles that I look at. I read online medical articles. I use the Internet to look things up. But I make a conscious effort not to look at headlines or other stuff on the periphery.

I’m not stupid or naive enough to believe that the insanity and acrimony won’t continue happening. But the bottom line is that obviously I can’t control or change it.

So I try not to let it upset me any more. If the only way to do that is to completely not read it and not know, I’m fine with that. After almost 50 years of reading news (I started when I was about 7, with my parent’s subscription to Newsweek), I’ve completely stopped.

Instead of reading the day’s events I now mindlessly play Toon Blast or read history books on my iPad before bed. Perhaps a waste of time, but no more so than getting upset, losing sleep, getting ulcers, and going gray over things I can’t control.

I have more time in the morning and my work day, since I’m not spending it scanning headlines.

Now my world is restricted to my family, friends, dogs, and job. Things I enjoy and have control over. Those around me have been told that I wish to discuss nothing about current events, and they respect that.

Now I sleep better, worry less (at least about those things), and have more time to focus on my immediate world. And that’s fine with me. It may be the way of the ostrich, but at this point in my life, that’s what I prefer.

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

I’ve become kind of a hermit. At least, as much as someone who drives a car, goes to the store, and sees patients 5 days a week can be.

It seemed like the news was always dominated by another senseless mass shooting, an increasingly dysfunctional government, an environmental crisis going to hell (with us along for the ride), and endlessly escalating inflammatory political pundits (who always seem to get far more coverage than they deserve. Personally, I don’t think they deserve any, regardless of which side they’re on).

As things got worse, I became more obsessed with reading about them. I’d read the news on my iPad before bed, and when I first woke up, and several times a day at work.

It was driving me nuts. Perhaps it’s my personality to worry too much about these things. I was losing sleep and wasting valuable time at home and work.

I came to a decision. It was time to stop.

I deleted all my news apps and bookmarks. I’d go to lengths to avoid all news. If in a restaurant where a TV was on, I’d sit with my back to it. I stopped going to the doctor’s lounge (with its TVs constantly on a news network). When I had to wait to pick up my car at the shop, I sat outside and played games on my phone rather than use the waiting room with its blaring TV.

I just walked away from the 24/7 news cycle. And you know what? I’m happier now.

This doesn’t mean I’m completely unplugged. I still read interesting stories about science or history. I check the weather forecast. Family members occasionally send me amusing articles that I look at. I read online medical articles. I use the Internet to look things up. But I make a conscious effort not to look at headlines or other stuff on the periphery.

I’m not stupid or naive enough to believe that the insanity and acrimony won’t continue happening. But the bottom line is that obviously I can’t control or change it.

So I try not to let it upset me any more. If the only way to do that is to completely not read it and not know, I’m fine with that. After almost 50 years of reading news (I started when I was about 7, with my parent’s subscription to Newsweek), I’ve completely stopped.

Instead of reading the day’s events I now mindlessly play Toon Blast or read history books on my iPad before bed. Perhaps a waste of time, but no more so than getting upset, losing sleep, getting ulcers, and going gray over things I can’t control.

I have more time in the morning and my work day, since I’m not spending it scanning headlines.

Now my world is restricted to my family, friends, dogs, and job. Things I enjoy and have control over. Those around me have been told that I wish to discuss nothing about current events, and they respect that.

Now I sleep better, worry less (at least about those things), and have more time to focus on my immediate world. And that’s fine with me. It may be the way of the ostrich, but at this point in my life, that’s what I prefer.

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

This month, the current Editor-in-Chief and his Editorial Board will conclude our 5-year term. Megan Adams MD, JD, MSc, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine will assume my position. She has a stellar academic, research, and teaching record and is one of the best writers I know. She and her Board of Editors will carry on the tradition of GIHN.

The idea of an official newspaper of the AGA came from AGA staff in 2006. The goals of the newspaper were twofold: to communicate the latest news and information to practitioners to help them stay at the forefront of patient care and to develop another revenue stream for our society. The newspaper was launched in January 2007 with Charles Lightdale MD, AGAF, as the first editor and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, as the second (each with 5-year terms). While they wrote occasional editorials, I began writing 300-word essays for each issue. I have tried diligently to maintain a balanced viewpoint for all my editorials, although this has been difficult in the recent past and current national environment.

The paper evolved from a simple print publication to a multimedia communications vehicle that includes online-only content, videos, supplements, quizzes, and more. Last year, we published our first “Data Trends,” a supplement containing 10 or so brief articles written by content experts, covering current topics of high interest. As the paper evolved, we broadened our target audience to include research scientists, international practitioners and others interested in digestive diseases.

As I did last month, I would like to thank the AGA and Frontline Medical Communications staff for their dedication and constant work to bring you this newspaper.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Tadataka “Tachi” Yamada, who died this last month at the age of 76 years. He was one of the premier advocates for global health. His contributions to our field thru research, philanthropy, and leadership were enormous. We will miss him greatly.

John I Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

This month, the current Editor-in-Chief and his Editorial Board will conclude our 5-year term. Megan Adams MD, JD, MSc, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine will assume my position. She has a stellar academic, research, and teaching record and is one of the best writers I know. She and her Board of Editors will carry on the tradition of GIHN.

The idea of an official newspaper of the AGA came from AGA staff in 2006. The goals of the newspaper were twofold: to communicate the latest news and information to practitioners to help them stay at the forefront of patient care and to develop another revenue stream for our society. The newspaper was launched in January 2007 with Charles Lightdale MD, AGAF, as the first editor and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, as the second (each with 5-year terms). While they wrote occasional editorials, I began writing 300-word essays for each issue. I have tried diligently to maintain a balanced viewpoint for all my editorials, although this has been difficult in the recent past and current national environment.

The paper evolved from a simple print publication to a multimedia communications vehicle that includes online-only content, videos, supplements, quizzes, and more. Last year, we published our first “Data Trends,” a supplement containing 10 or so brief articles written by content experts, covering current topics of high interest. As the paper evolved, we broadened our target audience to include research scientists, international practitioners and others interested in digestive diseases.

As I did last month, I would like to thank the AGA and Frontline Medical Communications staff for their dedication and constant work to bring you this newspaper.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Tadataka “Tachi” Yamada, who died this last month at the age of 76 years. He was one of the premier advocates for global health. His contributions to our field thru research, philanthropy, and leadership were enormous. We will miss him greatly.

John I Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

This month, the current Editor-in-Chief and his Editorial Board will conclude our 5-year term. Megan Adams MD, JD, MSc, from the University of Michigan School of Medicine will assume my position. She has a stellar academic, research, and teaching record and is one of the best writers I know. She and her Board of Editors will carry on the tradition of GIHN.

The idea of an official newspaper of the AGA came from AGA staff in 2006. The goals of the newspaper were twofold: to communicate the latest news and information to practitioners to help them stay at the forefront of patient care and to develop another revenue stream for our society. The newspaper was launched in January 2007 with Charles Lightdale MD, AGAF, as the first editor and Colin W. Howden MD, AGAF, as the second (each with 5-year terms). While they wrote occasional editorials, I began writing 300-word essays for each issue. I have tried diligently to maintain a balanced viewpoint for all my editorials, although this has been difficult in the recent past and current national environment.

The paper evolved from a simple print publication to a multimedia communications vehicle that includes online-only content, videos, supplements, quizzes, and more. Last year, we published our first “Data Trends,” a supplement containing 10 or so brief articles written by content experts, covering current topics of high interest. As the paper evolved, we broadened our target audience to include research scientists, international practitioners and others interested in digestive diseases.

As I did last month, I would like to thank the AGA and Frontline Medical Communications staff for their dedication and constant work to bring you this newspaper.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Tadataka “Tachi” Yamada, who died this last month at the age of 76 years. He was one of the premier advocates for global health. His contributions to our field thru research, philanthropy, and leadership were enormous. We will miss him greatly.

John I Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Officer Scott Davis is a passionate man who thinks and talks quickly. As a member of the Special Events Team for Montgomery County, Maryland, he was already staging in Rockville, outside of Washington, D.C., when the call came in last Jan. 6 to move their unit to the U.S. Capitol. 

Courtesy Scott Davis

“It was surreal,” said Mr. Davis. “There were people from all different groups at the Capitol that day. Many people were trying to get out, but others surrounded us. They called us ‘human race traitors.’ And then I heard someone say, ‘It’s good you brought your shields, we’ll carry your bodies out on them.’”

Mr. Davis described hours of mayhem during which he was hit with bear spray, a brick, a chair, and a metal rod. One of the members of Mr. Davis’ unit remains on leave with a head injury nearly 9 months after the siege.  

“It went on for 3 hours, but it felt like 15 minutes. Then, all of a sudden, it was over.”

For the members of law enforcement at the Capitol that day, the repercussions are still being felt, perhaps most notably in the case of the four officers who subsequently died of suicide. Three of the officers were with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and one worked for the Capitol Police Department.

Police officers are subjected to traumas on a regular basis and often placed in circumstances where their lives are in danger. Yet four suicides within a short time – all connected to a single event – is particularly shocking and tragic, even more so for how little attention it has garnered to date.  
 

What contributes to the high rate of suicide among officers?

Scott Silverii, PhD, a former police officer and author of Broken and Blue: A Policeman’s Guide to Health, Hope, and Healing, commented that he “wouldn’t be surprised if there are more suicides to come.” This stems not only from the experiences of that day but also the elevated risk for suicide that law enforcement officers already experienced prior to the Capitol riots. Suicide remains a rare event, with a national all-population average of 13.9 per 100,000 citizens. But as Dr. Silverii noted, more officers die by suicide each year than are killed in the line of duty. 

“Suicide is a big part of police culture – officers are doers and fixers, and it is seen as being more honorable to take yourself out of the equation than it is to ask for help,” he said. “Most officers come in with past pain, and this is a situation where they are being overwhelmed and under-respected. At the same time, police culture is a closed culture, and it is not friendly to researchers.”

Another contributor is the frequency with which law enforcement officers are exposed to trauma, according to Vernon Herron, Director of Officer Safety and Wellness for the Baltimore City Police. 

“Suicide can be a direct result of trauma, and at some point you just can’t absorb it, and it leads to problems,” Mr. Herron said, citing the psychiatric and addiction issues that officers commonly experience.
 

Protecting the protectors

Mr. Herron and others are working to address these problems head-on.

“We are trying to identify employees exposed to trauma and to offer counseling and intervention,” he said, “Otherwise, everything else will fall short.”

Yet implementing such measures is no easy task, given the lack of a central oversight organization for law enforcement, said Sheldon Greenberg, PhD, a former police officer and professor of management in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“In the United States there is no such thing as ‘The Police.’ There is no one in a position to set policy, standards, or training mandates nationally,” he said. “There are approximately 18,000 police and sheriff departments in the country, and many of them are small. No one can compel law enforcement agencies to implement officer wellness and suicide prevention programs, make counseling available to officers, or train supervisors and peers to identify suicide ideation.”

Dr. Greenberg said a further barrier to helping police officers considering self-harm is posed by the fact that even if they do seek out counseling, there is no guarantee that it will remain confidential. 

“Support personnel have an obligation to report an officer who is thinking about committing suicide,” he said. “Many officers are concerned about this lack of confidentiality and that they may be branded if they seek help.”

Although Dr. Greenberg said many police officers are self-professed “action junkies,” even their unusually high capacity for stress is often tested by the realities of the job.  

“Increasing demands for service, shortages of personnel, misinformation about police, COVID-19, talk about restructuring policing with little concrete direction, increased exposure to violence, greater numbers of vulnerable people, and more take a toll over time,” he lamented. “In addition, we are in a recruiting crisis in law enforcement, and there are no standards to ensure the quality of psychological screening provided to applicants. Many officers will go through their entire career and never be screened again. We know little about the stresses and strains that officers bring to the job.”
 

After the siege

It is not clear how many police officers were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. During the chaos of the day, reinforcements to the Capitol Police Department arrived from Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but no official numbers on responders were obtained; Mr. Davis thought it was likely that there were at least 1,000 law enforcement officers present. Those who did respond sustained an estimated 100 injuries, including an officer who died the next day. Of the officers who died by suicide, one died 3 days after, another died 9 days later, and two more died in July – numbers that contradict the notion that this is some coincidence. Officer Alexander Kettering, a colleague of Mr. Davis who has been with Montgomery County Police for 15 years, was among those tasked with protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6. The chaos, violence, and destruction of the day has stuck with him and continues to occupy his thoughts.

“I had a front-row seat to the whole thing. It was overwhelming, and I’ve never seen people this angry,” said Mr. Kettering. “There were people up on the veranda and on the scaffolding set up for the inauguration. They were smashing windows and throwing things into the crowd. It was insane. There were decent people coming up to us and saying they would pray for us, then others calling us traitors, telling us to stand down and join them.”

In the aftermath of the Capitol siege, Mr. Kettering watched in dismay as the narrative of the day’s events began to warp.

“At first there was a consensus that what happened was so wrong, and then the politics took over. People were saying it wasn’t as bad as the media said, that it really wasn’t that violent and those speaking out are traitors or political operatives. I relive it every day, and it’s hard to escape, even in casual conversation.”

He added that the days’ events were compounded by the already heightened tensions surrounding the national debate around policing.

“It’s been 18 months of stress, of anti-police movements, and there is a fine line between addressing police brutality and being anti-police,” Mr. Kettering said, noting that the aforementioned issues have all contributed to the ongoing struggles his fellow officers are experiencing. 

“It’s not a thing for cops to talk about how an event affected them,” he said. “A lot of officers have just shut down. People have careers and pensions to protect, and every time we stop a motorist, something could go wrong, even if we do everything right. There are mixed signals: They tell us, ‘Defend but don’t defend.’” 

His colleague, Mr. Davis, said that officers “need more support from politicians,” noting that he felt particularly insulted by a comment made by a Montgomery County public official who accused the officers present at the Capitol of racism. “And finally, we feel a little betrayed by the public.”
 

More questions than answers from the Capitol’s day of chaos

What about the events of Jan. 6 led to the suicides of four law enforcement officers and what can be done to prevent more deaths in the future? There are the individual factors of each man’s personal history, circumstances, and vulnerabilities, including the sense of being personally endangered, witnessing trauma, and direct injury – one officer who died of suicide had sustained a head injury that day.

We don’t know if the officers went into the event with preexisting mental illness or addiction or if the day’s events precipitated psychiatric episodes. And with all the partisan anger surrounding the presidential election, we don’t know if each officer’s political beliefs amplified his distress over what occurred in a social media climate where police are being faulted by all sides.

When multiple suicides occur in a community, there is always concern about a “copycat” phenomena. These concerns are made more difficult to address, however, given the police culture of taboo and stigma associated with getting professional help, difficulty accessing care, and career repercussions for speaking openly about suicidal thoughts and mental health issues.

Finally, there is the current political agenda that leaves officers feeling unsupported, fearful of negative outcomes, and unappreciated. The Capitol siege in particular embodied a great deal of national distress and confusion over basic issues of truth, justice, and perceptions of reality in our polarized society.  

Can we move to a place where those who enforce laws have easy access to treatment, free from stigma? Can we encourage a culture that does not tolerate brutality or racism, while also refusing to label all police as bad and lending support to their mission? Can we be more attuned to the repercussions of circumstances where officers are witnesses to trauma, are endangered themselves, and would benefit from acknowledgment of their distress? 

Time will tell if our anti-police pendulum swings back. In the meantime, these four suicides among people defending our country remain tragically overlooked.
 

Dinah Miller, MD, is coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Officer Scott Davis is a passionate man who thinks and talks quickly. As a member of the Special Events Team for Montgomery County, Maryland, he was already staging in Rockville, outside of Washington, D.C., when the call came in last Jan. 6 to move their unit to the U.S. Capitol. 

Courtesy Scott Davis

“It was surreal,” said Mr. Davis. “There were people from all different groups at the Capitol that day. Many people were trying to get out, but others surrounded us. They called us ‘human race traitors.’ And then I heard someone say, ‘It’s good you brought your shields, we’ll carry your bodies out on them.’”

Mr. Davis described hours of mayhem during which he was hit with bear spray, a brick, a chair, and a metal rod. One of the members of Mr. Davis’ unit remains on leave with a head injury nearly 9 months after the siege.  

“It went on for 3 hours, but it felt like 15 minutes. Then, all of a sudden, it was over.”

For the members of law enforcement at the Capitol that day, the repercussions are still being felt, perhaps most notably in the case of the four officers who subsequently died of suicide. Three of the officers were with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and one worked for the Capitol Police Department.

Police officers are subjected to traumas on a regular basis and often placed in circumstances where their lives are in danger. Yet four suicides within a short time – all connected to a single event – is particularly shocking and tragic, even more so for how little attention it has garnered to date.  
 

What contributes to the high rate of suicide among officers?

Scott Silverii, PhD, a former police officer and author of Broken and Blue: A Policeman’s Guide to Health, Hope, and Healing, commented that he “wouldn’t be surprised if there are more suicides to come.” This stems not only from the experiences of that day but also the elevated risk for suicide that law enforcement officers already experienced prior to the Capitol riots. Suicide remains a rare event, with a national all-population average of 13.9 per 100,000 citizens. But as Dr. Silverii noted, more officers die by suicide each year than are killed in the line of duty. 

“Suicide is a big part of police culture – officers are doers and fixers, and it is seen as being more honorable to take yourself out of the equation than it is to ask for help,” he said. “Most officers come in with past pain, and this is a situation where they are being overwhelmed and under-respected. At the same time, police culture is a closed culture, and it is not friendly to researchers.”

Another contributor is the frequency with which law enforcement officers are exposed to trauma, according to Vernon Herron, Director of Officer Safety and Wellness for the Baltimore City Police. 

“Suicide can be a direct result of trauma, and at some point you just can’t absorb it, and it leads to problems,” Mr. Herron said, citing the psychiatric and addiction issues that officers commonly experience.
 

Protecting the protectors

Mr. Herron and others are working to address these problems head-on.

“We are trying to identify employees exposed to trauma and to offer counseling and intervention,” he said, “Otherwise, everything else will fall short.”

Yet implementing such measures is no easy task, given the lack of a central oversight organization for law enforcement, said Sheldon Greenberg, PhD, a former police officer and professor of management in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“In the United States there is no such thing as ‘The Police.’ There is no one in a position to set policy, standards, or training mandates nationally,” he said. “There are approximately 18,000 police and sheriff departments in the country, and many of them are small. No one can compel law enforcement agencies to implement officer wellness and suicide prevention programs, make counseling available to officers, or train supervisors and peers to identify suicide ideation.”

Dr. Greenberg said a further barrier to helping police officers considering self-harm is posed by the fact that even if they do seek out counseling, there is no guarantee that it will remain confidential. 

“Support personnel have an obligation to report an officer who is thinking about committing suicide,” he said. “Many officers are concerned about this lack of confidentiality and that they may be branded if they seek help.”

Although Dr. Greenberg said many police officers are self-professed “action junkies,” even their unusually high capacity for stress is often tested by the realities of the job.  

“Increasing demands for service, shortages of personnel, misinformation about police, COVID-19, talk about restructuring policing with little concrete direction, increased exposure to violence, greater numbers of vulnerable people, and more take a toll over time,” he lamented. “In addition, we are in a recruiting crisis in law enforcement, and there are no standards to ensure the quality of psychological screening provided to applicants. Many officers will go through their entire career and never be screened again. We know little about the stresses and strains that officers bring to the job.”
 

After the siege

It is not clear how many police officers were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. During the chaos of the day, reinforcements to the Capitol Police Department arrived from Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but no official numbers on responders were obtained; Mr. Davis thought it was likely that there were at least 1,000 law enforcement officers present. Those who did respond sustained an estimated 100 injuries, including an officer who died the next day. Of the officers who died by suicide, one died 3 days after, another died 9 days later, and two more died in July – numbers that contradict the notion that this is some coincidence. Officer Alexander Kettering, a colleague of Mr. Davis who has been with Montgomery County Police for 15 years, was among those tasked with protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6. The chaos, violence, and destruction of the day has stuck with him and continues to occupy his thoughts.

“I had a front-row seat to the whole thing. It was overwhelming, and I’ve never seen people this angry,” said Mr. Kettering. “There were people up on the veranda and on the scaffolding set up for the inauguration. They were smashing windows and throwing things into the crowd. It was insane. There were decent people coming up to us and saying they would pray for us, then others calling us traitors, telling us to stand down and join them.”

In the aftermath of the Capitol siege, Mr. Kettering watched in dismay as the narrative of the day’s events began to warp.

“At first there was a consensus that what happened was so wrong, and then the politics took over. People were saying it wasn’t as bad as the media said, that it really wasn’t that violent and those speaking out are traitors or political operatives. I relive it every day, and it’s hard to escape, even in casual conversation.”

He added that the days’ events were compounded by the already heightened tensions surrounding the national debate around policing.

“It’s been 18 months of stress, of anti-police movements, and there is a fine line between addressing police brutality and being anti-police,” Mr. Kettering said, noting that the aforementioned issues have all contributed to the ongoing struggles his fellow officers are experiencing. 

“It’s not a thing for cops to talk about how an event affected them,” he said. “A lot of officers have just shut down. People have careers and pensions to protect, and every time we stop a motorist, something could go wrong, even if we do everything right. There are mixed signals: They tell us, ‘Defend but don’t defend.’” 

His colleague, Mr. Davis, said that officers “need more support from politicians,” noting that he felt particularly insulted by a comment made by a Montgomery County public official who accused the officers present at the Capitol of racism. “And finally, we feel a little betrayed by the public.”
 

More questions than answers from the Capitol’s day of chaos

What about the events of Jan. 6 led to the suicides of four law enforcement officers and what can be done to prevent more deaths in the future? There are the individual factors of each man’s personal history, circumstances, and vulnerabilities, including the sense of being personally endangered, witnessing trauma, and direct injury – one officer who died of suicide had sustained a head injury that day.

We don’t know if the officers went into the event with preexisting mental illness or addiction or if the day’s events precipitated psychiatric episodes. And with all the partisan anger surrounding the presidential election, we don’t know if each officer’s political beliefs amplified his distress over what occurred in a social media climate where police are being faulted by all sides.

When multiple suicides occur in a community, there is always concern about a “copycat” phenomena. These concerns are made more difficult to address, however, given the police culture of taboo and stigma associated with getting professional help, difficulty accessing care, and career repercussions for speaking openly about suicidal thoughts and mental health issues.

Finally, there is the current political agenda that leaves officers feeling unsupported, fearful of negative outcomes, and unappreciated. The Capitol siege in particular embodied a great deal of national distress and confusion over basic issues of truth, justice, and perceptions of reality in our polarized society.  

Can we move to a place where those who enforce laws have easy access to treatment, free from stigma? Can we encourage a culture that does not tolerate brutality or racism, while also refusing to label all police as bad and lending support to their mission? Can we be more attuned to the repercussions of circumstances where officers are witnesses to trauma, are endangered themselves, and would benefit from acknowledgment of their distress? 

Time will tell if our anti-police pendulum swings back. In the meantime, these four suicides among people defending our country remain tragically overlooked.
 

Dinah Miller, MD, is coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Officer Scott Davis is a passionate man who thinks and talks quickly. As a member of the Special Events Team for Montgomery County, Maryland, he was already staging in Rockville, outside of Washington, D.C., when the call came in last Jan. 6 to move their unit to the U.S. Capitol. 

Courtesy Scott Davis

“It was surreal,” said Mr. Davis. “There were people from all different groups at the Capitol that day. Many people were trying to get out, but others surrounded us. They called us ‘human race traitors.’ And then I heard someone say, ‘It’s good you brought your shields, we’ll carry your bodies out on them.’”

Mr. Davis described hours of mayhem during which he was hit with bear spray, a brick, a chair, and a metal rod. One of the members of Mr. Davis’ unit remains on leave with a head injury nearly 9 months after the siege.  

“It went on for 3 hours, but it felt like 15 minutes. Then, all of a sudden, it was over.”

For the members of law enforcement at the Capitol that day, the repercussions are still being felt, perhaps most notably in the case of the four officers who subsequently died of suicide. Three of the officers were with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and one worked for the Capitol Police Department.

Police officers are subjected to traumas on a regular basis and often placed in circumstances where their lives are in danger. Yet four suicides within a short time – all connected to a single event – is particularly shocking and tragic, even more so for how little attention it has garnered to date.  
 

What contributes to the high rate of suicide among officers?

Scott Silverii, PhD, a former police officer and author of Broken and Blue: A Policeman’s Guide to Health, Hope, and Healing, commented that he “wouldn’t be surprised if there are more suicides to come.” This stems not only from the experiences of that day but also the elevated risk for suicide that law enforcement officers already experienced prior to the Capitol riots. Suicide remains a rare event, with a national all-population average of 13.9 per 100,000 citizens. But as Dr. Silverii noted, more officers die by suicide each year than are killed in the line of duty. 

“Suicide is a big part of police culture – officers are doers and fixers, and it is seen as being more honorable to take yourself out of the equation than it is to ask for help,” he said. “Most officers come in with past pain, and this is a situation where they are being overwhelmed and under-respected. At the same time, police culture is a closed culture, and it is not friendly to researchers.”

Another contributor is the frequency with which law enforcement officers are exposed to trauma, according to Vernon Herron, Director of Officer Safety and Wellness for the Baltimore City Police. 

“Suicide can be a direct result of trauma, and at some point you just can’t absorb it, and it leads to problems,” Mr. Herron said, citing the psychiatric and addiction issues that officers commonly experience.
 

Protecting the protectors

Mr. Herron and others are working to address these problems head-on.

“We are trying to identify employees exposed to trauma and to offer counseling and intervention,” he said, “Otherwise, everything else will fall short.”

Yet implementing such measures is no easy task, given the lack of a central oversight organization for law enforcement, said Sheldon Greenberg, PhD, a former police officer and professor of management in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“In the United States there is no such thing as ‘The Police.’ There is no one in a position to set policy, standards, or training mandates nationally,” he said. “There are approximately 18,000 police and sheriff departments in the country, and many of them are small. No one can compel law enforcement agencies to implement officer wellness and suicide prevention programs, make counseling available to officers, or train supervisors and peers to identify suicide ideation.”

Dr. Greenberg said a further barrier to helping police officers considering self-harm is posed by the fact that even if they do seek out counseling, there is no guarantee that it will remain confidential. 

“Support personnel have an obligation to report an officer who is thinking about committing suicide,” he said. “Many officers are concerned about this lack of confidentiality and that they may be branded if they seek help.”

Although Dr. Greenberg said many police officers are self-professed “action junkies,” even their unusually high capacity for stress is often tested by the realities of the job.  

“Increasing demands for service, shortages of personnel, misinformation about police, COVID-19, talk about restructuring policing with little concrete direction, increased exposure to violence, greater numbers of vulnerable people, and more take a toll over time,” he lamented. “In addition, we are in a recruiting crisis in law enforcement, and there are no standards to ensure the quality of psychological screening provided to applicants. Many officers will go through their entire career and never be screened again. We know little about the stresses and strains that officers bring to the job.”
 

After the siege

It is not clear how many police officers were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. During the chaos of the day, reinforcements to the Capitol Police Department arrived from Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, but no official numbers on responders were obtained; Mr. Davis thought it was likely that there were at least 1,000 law enforcement officers present. Those who did respond sustained an estimated 100 injuries, including an officer who died the next day. Of the officers who died by suicide, one died 3 days after, another died 9 days later, and two more died in July – numbers that contradict the notion that this is some coincidence. Officer Alexander Kettering, a colleague of Mr. Davis who has been with Montgomery County Police for 15 years, was among those tasked with protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6. The chaos, violence, and destruction of the day has stuck with him and continues to occupy his thoughts.

“I had a front-row seat to the whole thing. It was overwhelming, and I’ve never seen people this angry,” said Mr. Kettering. “There were people up on the veranda and on the scaffolding set up for the inauguration. They were smashing windows and throwing things into the crowd. It was insane. There were decent people coming up to us and saying they would pray for us, then others calling us traitors, telling us to stand down and join them.”

In the aftermath of the Capitol siege, Mr. Kettering watched in dismay as the narrative of the day’s events began to warp.

“At first there was a consensus that what happened was so wrong, and then the politics took over. People were saying it wasn’t as bad as the media said, that it really wasn’t that violent and those speaking out are traitors or political operatives. I relive it every day, and it’s hard to escape, even in casual conversation.”

He added that the days’ events were compounded by the already heightened tensions surrounding the national debate around policing.

“It’s been 18 months of stress, of anti-police movements, and there is a fine line between addressing police brutality and being anti-police,” Mr. Kettering said, noting that the aforementioned issues have all contributed to the ongoing struggles his fellow officers are experiencing. 

“It’s not a thing for cops to talk about how an event affected them,” he said. “A lot of officers have just shut down. People have careers and pensions to protect, and every time we stop a motorist, something could go wrong, even if we do everything right. There are mixed signals: They tell us, ‘Defend but don’t defend.’” 

His colleague, Mr. Davis, said that officers “need more support from politicians,” noting that he felt particularly insulted by a comment made by a Montgomery County public official who accused the officers present at the Capitol of racism. “And finally, we feel a little betrayed by the public.”
 

More questions than answers from the Capitol’s day of chaos

What about the events of Jan. 6 led to the suicides of four law enforcement officers and what can be done to prevent more deaths in the future? There are the individual factors of each man’s personal history, circumstances, and vulnerabilities, including the sense of being personally endangered, witnessing trauma, and direct injury – one officer who died of suicide had sustained a head injury that day.

We don’t know if the officers went into the event with preexisting mental illness or addiction or if the day’s events precipitated psychiatric episodes. And with all the partisan anger surrounding the presidential election, we don’t know if each officer’s political beliefs amplified his distress over what occurred in a social media climate where police are being faulted by all sides.

When multiple suicides occur in a community, there is always concern about a “copycat” phenomena. These concerns are made more difficult to address, however, given the police culture of taboo and stigma associated with getting professional help, difficulty accessing care, and career repercussions for speaking openly about suicidal thoughts and mental health issues.

Finally, there is the current political agenda that leaves officers feeling unsupported, fearful of negative outcomes, and unappreciated. The Capitol siege in particular embodied a great deal of national distress and confusion over basic issues of truth, justice, and perceptions of reality in our polarized society.  

Can we move to a place where those who enforce laws have easy access to treatment, free from stigma? Can we encourage a culture that does not tolerate brutality or racism, while also refusing to label all police as bad and lending support to their mission? Can we be more attuned to the repercussions of circumstances where officers are witnesses to trauma, are endangered themselves, and would benefit from acknowledgment of their distress? 

Time will tell if our anti-police pendulum swings back. In the meantime, these four suicides among people defending our country remain tragically overlooked.
 

Dinah Miller, MD, is coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice in Baltimore and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.