Opinion

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

A 63-year-old man undergoes cardiac bypass surgery. He is able to be extubated at 8 hours. The next morning he has a fever to 38.5° C His exam shows no redness at the surgical site, or at his IV sites. His lung exam is unremarkable. His urinalysis is without white blood cells. His white blood cell count is 8,500, and his chest x-ray shows atelectasis without other abnormalities.

What is the most likely cause of this patient’s fever? The research papers cited below suggest what it isn’t and what it might be.

One of the earliest things I was taught in my clinical years were the causes of postoperative fever, or the 5Ws, which are wind, water, wound, walk, and wonder drug.

Atelectasis was touted as the cause of early postoperative fever. This became clear fact in my medical student mind, not something that I had ever questioned.  But investigation into whether there is evidence of this shows it is only a myth. In actuality, there is scant evidence, if any, for atelectasis causing fever. Frequently, no cause of postoperative fever has been found, despite aggressive attempts to look for one.

What the research says

Fanning and colleagues prospectively looked at 537 women who were undergoing major gynecologic surgery.¹ Postoperative fever occurred in 211 of them. In 92% of these patients, no cause for fever was found.

Atelectasis is frequently seen postoperatively. Schlenker and colleagues reported that, in patients with postoperative atelectasis, temperature elevation on the first postoperative day was directly related to the degree of atelectasis, but the white blood cell count elevation was inversely related.²

In this study, atelectasis was diagnosed by auscultation, with chest x-rays ordered at the discretion of the physician. There was little correlation with the auscultatory findings and presence or absence of atelectasis in the patients who did receive chest x-rays.

Engoren did a study to prospectively evaluate 100 postoperative patients with daily chest x-rays and continuous temperature monitoring.³ Results from the day of surgery (day 0) to the second postoperative day showed an increase in presence of atelectasis from 43% on the day of surgery to 79% by day 2.

Fever, defined as temperature greater than 38° C, fell from 37% on the day of surgery to 17% by day 2. Engoren found no association between fever and degree of atelectasis.

Mavros and colleagues did a comprehensive review to determine whether there was evidence to support atelectasis causing fever.⁴ They concluded that there was no clinical evidence supporting the concept that atelectasis is associated with early postoperative fever.
 

A possible cause of fever

Mavros and colleagues’ paper suggested that early postoperative fever was caused by stress derived by surgery, which can increase the patient’s interleukin-6 levels and thermostatic set point. This was demonstrated in a small study by Wortel and colleagues, who measured IL-6 levels in the portal and peripheral blood of patients following pancreaticoduodenectomy.⁵ They found IL-6 levels correlated strongly with peak body temperature.

In conclusion, atelectasis is not a well-established cause of postoperative fever.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Fanning J et al. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 6(6):252-5 .

2. Schlenker JD and Hubay CA. Arch Surg 1973;107:846-50

3. Engoren M. Chest. 1995;107(1):81-4 .

4. Michael N et al. Chest. 2011;140(2):418-24

5. Wortel CH et al. Surgery. 1993;114(3):564-70 .

Editor’s note: In this article, we present an archetypal ethics challenge in hospital medicine. The authors, members of the SHM’s Ethics Special Interest Group and clinical ethics consultants at their respective hospitals, will comment on the questions and practical approaches for hospitalists.

Ms. S, an 82-year-old woman with severe dementia, was initially hospitalized in the ICU with acute on chronic respiratory failure. Prior to admission, Ms. S lived with her daughter, who is her primary caregiver. Ms. S is able to say her daughter’s name, and answer “yes” and “no” to simple questions. She is bed bound, incontinent of urine and feces, and dependent on her daughter for all ADLs.

This admission, Ms. S has been re-intubated 4 times for recurrent respiratory failure. The nursing staff are distressed that she is suffering physically. Her daughter requests to continue all intensive, life-prolonging treatment including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition.

During sign out, your colleague remarks that his grandmother was in a similar situation and that his family chose to pursue comfort care. He questions whether Ms. S has any quality of life and asks if you think further intensive care is futile.

On your first day caring for Ms. S, you contact her primary care provider. Her PCP reports that Ms. S and her daughter completed an advance directive (AD) 10 years ago which documents a preference for all life prolonging treatment.
 

Question #1: What are the ethical challenges?

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, we face a common ethical challenge: how to respect the patient’s prior preferences (autonomy) when the currently requested treatments have diminishing benefits (beneficence) and escalating harms (non-maleficence). Life-prolonging care can have diminishing returns at the end of life. Ms. S’s loss of decision-making capacity adds a layer of complexity. Her AD was completed when she was able to consider decisions about her care, and she might make different decisions in her current state of health. Shared decision-making with a surrogate can be complicated by a surrogate’s anxiety with making life-altering decisions or their desire to avoid guilt or loneliness. Health care professionals face the limits of scientific knowledge in delivering accurate prognostic estimates, probabilities of recovery, and likelihood of benefit from interventions. In addition to the guideposts of ethical principles, some hospitals have policies which advise clinicians to avoid non-beneficial care.

Such situations are emotionally intense and can trigger distress among patients, families, caregivers and health care professionals. Conscious and unconscious bias about a patient’s perceived quality of life undermines equity and can play a role in our recommendations for patients of advanced age, with cognitive impairment, and those who live with a disability.
 

Question #2: How might you meet the patient’s medical needs in line with her goals?

Dr. Khawaja: In order to provide care consistent with the patient’s goals, the first step is to clarify these goals with Ms. S’s surrogate decision-maker, her daughter. In a previously autonomous but presently incapacitated patient, the previously expressed preferences in the form of a written AD should be respected. However, the AD is only a set of preferences completed at a particular time, not medical orders. The clinician and surrogate must consider how to apply the AD to the current clinical circumstances. The clinician should verify that the clinical circumstances specified in the AD have been met and evaluate if the patient’s preferences have changed since she originally completed the AD.

Surrogates are asked to use a Substituted Judgement Standard (i.e., what would the patient choose in this situation if known). This may differ from what the surrogate wants. If not known, surrogates are asked to use the Best Interest Standard (i.e., what would bring the most net benefit to the patient by weighing benefits and risks of treatment options). I often ask the surrogate, “Tell us about your loved one.” Or, “Knowing your loved one, what do you think would be the most important for her right now?”¹

I would also caution against bias in judging quality of life in patients with dementia, and using the term “futility,” as these concepts are inherently subjective. In general, when a colleague raises the issue of futility, I begin by asking, “…futile to achieve what goal?” That can help clarify some of the disagreement as some goals can be accomplished while others cannot.

Finally, I work to include other members of our team in these discussions. The distress of nurses, social workers, and others are important to acknowledge, validate, and involve in the problem-solving process.
 

Question #3: If you were Ms. S’s hospitalist, what would you do?

Dr. Khawaja: As the hospitalist caring for Ms. S, I would use the “four boxes” model as a helpful, clinically relevant and systematic approach to managing ethical concerns.²

This “four boxes” model gives us a practical framework to address these ethical principles by asking questions in four domains.

Medical indications: What is the nature of her current illness, and is it reversible or not? What is the probability of success of treatment options like mechanical ventilation? Are there adverse effects of treatment?

Patient preferences: Since Ms. S lacks capacity, does her daughter understand the benefits and burdens of treatment? What are the goals of treatment? Prolonging life? Minimizing discomfort? Spending time with loved ones? What burdens would the patient be willing to endure to reach her goals?

Quality of life: What would the patient’s quality of life be with and without the treatments?

Contextual features: My priorities would be building a relationship of trust with Ms. S’s daughter – by educating her about her mother’s clinical status, addressing her concerns and questions, and supporting her as we work through patient-centered decisions about what is best for her mother. Honest communication is a must, even if it means acknowledging uncertainties about the course of disease and prognosis.

These are not easy decisions for surrogates to make. They should be given time to process information and to make what they believe are the best decisions for their loved ones. It is critical for clinicians to provide honest and complete clinical information and to avoid value judgments, bias, or unreasonable time pressure. While one-on-one conversations are central, I find that multidisciplinary meetings allow all stakeholders to ask and answer vital questions and ideally to reach consensus in treatment planning.

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, I would use a structured approach to discussions with her daughter, such as the “SPIKES” protocol.³ Using open ended questions, I would ask about the patient’s and her daughter’s goals, values, and fears and provide support about the responsibility for shared-decision making and the difficulty of uncertainty. Reflecting statements can help in confirming understanding and showing attention (e.g. “I hear that avoiding discomfort would be important to your mother.”)

I find it helpful to emphasize my commitment to honesty and non-abandonment (a common fear among patients and families). By offering to provide recommendations about both disease-directed and palliative, comfort-focused interventions, the patient’s daughter has an opportunity to engage voluntarily in discussion. When asked about care that may have marginal benefit, I suggest time-limited trials.⁴ I do not offer non-beneficial treatments and if asked about such treatments, I note the underlying motive and why the treatment is not feasible (“I see that you are hoping that your mother will live longer, but I am concerned that tube feeding will not help because…”), offer preferable alternatives, and leave space for questions and emotions. It is important not to force a premature resolution of the situation through unilateral or coercive decisions⁵ (i.e., going off service does not mean I have to wrap up the existential crisis which is occurring.) A broader challenge is the grief and other emotions which accompany illness and death. I can neither prevent death nor grief, but I can offer my professional guidance and provide a supportive space for the patient and family to experience this transition. By acknowledging this, I center myself with the patient and family and we can work together toward a common goal of providing compassionate and ethical care.

Dr. Chase is associate professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco; and co-chair, Ethics Committee, San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Khawaja is assistant professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

References

1. Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1946-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.159.

2. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2006.

3. Baile WF, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–311. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302.

4. Chang DW, et al. Evaluation of time-limited trials among critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and reduction of nonbeneficial ICU treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):786–794. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1000.

5. Sedig, L. What’s the role of autonomy in patient-and family-centered care when patients and family members don’t agree? AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(1):12-17. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.18.1.ecas2-1601.

Editor’s note: In this article, we present an archetypal ethics challenge in hospital medicine. The authors, members of the SHM’s Ethics Special Interest Group and clinical ethics consultants at their respective hospitals, will comment on the questions and practical approaches for hospitalists.

Ms. S, an 82-year-old woman with severe dementia, was initially hospitalized in the ICU with acute on chronic respiratory failure. Prior to admission, Ms. S lived with her daughter, who is her primary caregiver. Ms. S is able to say her daughter’s name, and answer “yes” and “no” to simple questions. She is bed bound, incontinent of urine and feces, and dependent on her daughter for all ADLs.

This admission, Ms. S has been re-intubated 4 times for recurrent respiratory failure. The nursing staff are distressed that she is suffering physically. Her daughter requests to continue all intensive, life-prolonging treatment including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition.

During sign out, your colleague remarks that his grandmother was in a similar situation and that his family chose to pursue comfort care. He questions whether Ms. S has any quality of life and asks if you think further intensive care is futile.

On your first day caring for Ms. S, you contact her primary care provider. Her PCP reports that Ms. S and her daughter completed an advance directive (AD) 10 years ago which documents a preference for all life prolonging treatment.
 

Question #1: What are the ethical challenges?

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, we face a common ethical challenge: how to respect the patient’s prior preferences (autonomy) when the currently requested treatments have diminishing benefits (beneficence) and escalating harms (non-maleficence). Life-prolonging care can have diminishing returns at the end of life. Ms. S’s loss of decision-making capacity adds a layer of complexity. Her AD was completed when she was able to consider decisions about her care, and she might make different decisions in her current state of health. Shared decision-making with a surrogate can be complicated by a surrogate’s anxiety with making life-altering decisions or their desire to avoid guilt or loneliness. Health care professionals face the limits of scientific knowledge in delivering accurate prognostic estimates, probabilities of recovery, and likelihood of benefit from interventions. In addition to the guideposts of ethical principles, some hospitals have policies which advise clinicians to avoid non-beneficial care.

Such situations are emotionally intense and can trigger distress among patients, families, caregivers and health care professionals. Conscious and unconscious bias about a patient’s perceived quality of life undermines equity and can play a role in our recommendations for patients of advanced age, with cognitive impairment, and those who live with a disability.
 

Question #2: How might you meet the patient’s medical needs in line with her goals?

Dr. Khawaja: In order to provide care consistent with the patient’s goals, the first step is to clarify these goals with Ms. S’s surrogate decision-maker, her daughter. In a previously autonomous but presently incapacitated patient, the previously expressed preferences in the form of a written AD should be respected. However, the AD is only a set of preferences completed at a particular time, not medical orders. The clinician and surrogate must consider how to apply the AD to the current clinical circumstances. The clinician should verify that the clinical circumstances specified in the AD have been met and evaluate if the patient’s preferences have changed since she originally completed the AD.

Surrogates are asked to use a Substituted Judgement Standard (i.e., what would the patient choose in this situation if known). This may differ from what the surrogate wants. If not known, surrogates are asked to use the Best Interest Standard (i.e., what would bring the most net benefit to the patient by weighing benefits and risks of treatment options). I often ask the surrogate, “Tell us about your loved one.” Or, “Knowing your loved one, what do you think would be the most important for her right now?”¹

I would also caution against bias in judging quality of life in patients with dementia, and using the term “futility,” as these concepts are inherently subjective. In general, when a colleague raises the issue of futility, I begin by asking, “…futile to achieve what goal?” That can help clarify some of the disagreement as some goals can be accomplished while others cannot.

Finally, I work to include other members of our team in these discussions. The distress of nurses, social workers, and others are important to acknowledge, validate, and involve in the problem-solving process.
 

Question #3: If you were Ms. S’s hospitalist, what would you do?

Dr. Khawaja: As the hospitalist caring for Ms. S, I would use the “four boxes” model as a helpful, clinically relevant and systematic approach to managing ethical concerns.²

This “four boxes” model gives us a practical framework to address these ethical principles by asking questions in four domains.

Medical indications: What is the nature of her current illness, and is it reversible or not? What is the probability of success of treatment options like mechanical ventilation? Are there adverse effects of treatment?

Patient preferences: Since Ms. S lacks capacity, does her daughter understand the benefits and burdens of treatment? What are the goals of treatment? Prolonging life? Minimizing discomfort? Spending time with loved ones? What burdens would the patient be willing to endure to reach her goals?

Quality of life: What would the patient’s quality of life be with and without the treatments?

Contextual features: My priorities would be building a relationship of trust with Ms. S’s daughter – by educating her about her mother’s clinical status, addressing her concerns and questions, and supporting her as we work through patient-centered decisions about what is best for her mother. Honest communication is a must, even if it means acknowledging uncertainties about the course of disease and prognosis.

These are not easy decisions for surrogates to make. They should be given time to process information and to make what they believe are the best decisions for their loved ones. It is critical for clinicians to provide honest and complete clinical information and to avoid value judgments, bias, or unreasonable time pressure. While one-on-one conversations are central, I find that multidisciplinary meetings allow all stakeholders to ask and answer vital questions and ideally to reach consensus in treatment planning.

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, I would use a structured approach to discussions with her daughter, such as the “SPIKES” protocol.³ Using open ended questions, I would ask about the patient’s and her daughter’s goals, values, and fears and provide support about the responsibility for shared-decision making and the difficulty of uncertainty. Reflecting statements can help in confirming understanding and showing attention (e.g. “I hear that avoiding discomfort would be important to your mother.”)

I find it helpful to emphasize my commitment to honesty and non-abandonment (a common fear among patients and families). By offering to provide recommendations about both disease-directed and palliative, comfort-focused interventions, the patient’s daughter has an opportunity to engage voluntarily in discussion. When asked about care that may have marginal benefit, I suggest time-limited trials.⁴ I do not offer non-beneficial treatments and if asked about such treatments, I note the underlying motive and why the treatment is not feasible (“I see that you are hoping that your mother will live longer, but I am concerned that tube feeding will not help because…”), offer preferable alternatives, and leave space for questions and emotions. It is important not to force a premature resolution of the situation through unilateral or coercive decisions⁵ (i.e., going off service does not mean I have to wrap up the existential crisis which is occurring.) A broader challenge is the grief and other emotions which accompany illness and death. I can neither prevent death nor grief, but I can offer my professional guidance and provide a supportive space for the patient and family to experience this transition. By acknowledging this, I center myself with the patient and family and we can work together toward a common goal of providing compassionate and ethical care.

Dr. Chase is associate professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco; and co-chair, Ethics Committee, San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Khawaja is assistant professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

References

1. Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1946-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.159.

2. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2006.

3. Baile WF, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–311. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302.

4. Chang DW, et al. Evaluation of time-limited trials among critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and reduction of nonbeneficial ICU treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):786–794. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1000.

5. Sedig, L. What’s the role of autonomy in patient-and family-centered care when patients and family members don’t agree? AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(1):12-17. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.18.1.ecas2-1601.

Editor’s note: In this article, we present an archetypal ethics challenge in hospital medicine. The authors, members of the SHM’s Ethics Special Interest Group and clinical ethics consultants at their respective hospitals, will comment on the questions and practical approaches for hospitalists.

Ms. S, an 82-year-old woman with severe dementia, was initially hospitalized in the ICU with acute on chronic respiratory failure. Prior to admission, Ms. S lived with her daughter, who is her primary caregiver. Ms. S is able to say her daughter’s name, and answer “yes” and “no” to simple questions. She is bed bound, incontinent of urine and feces, and dependent on her daughter for all ADLs.

This admission, Ms. S has been re-intubated 4 times for recurrent respiratory failure. The nursing staff are distressed that she is suffering physically. Her daughter requests to continue all intensive, life-prolonging treatment including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition.

During sign out, your colleague remarks that his grandmother was in a similar situation and that his family chose to pursue comfort care. He questions whether Ms. S has any quality of life and asks if you think further intensive care is futile.

On your first day caring for Ms. S, you contact her primary care provider. Her PCP reports that Ms. S and her daughter completed an advance directive (AD) 10 years ago which documents a preference for all life prolonging treatment.
 

Question #1: What are the ethical challenges?

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, we face a common ethical challenge: how to respect the patient’s prior preferences (autonomy) when the currently requested treatments have diminishing benefits (beneficence) and escalating harms (non-maleficence). Life-prolonging care can have diminishing returns at the end of life. Ms. S’s loss of decision-making capacity adds a layer of complexity. Her AD was completed when she was able to consider decisions about her care, and she might make different decisions in her current state of health. Shared decision-making with a surrogate can be complicated by a surrogate’s anxiety with making life-altering decisions or their desire to avoid guilt or loneliness. Health care professionals face the limits of scientific knowledge in delivering accurate prognostic estimates, probabilities of recovery, and likelihood of benefit from interventions. In addition to the guideposts of ethical principles, some hospitals have policies which advise clinicians to avoid non-beneficial care.

Such situations are emotionally intense and can trigger distress among patients, families, caregivers and health care professionals. Conscious and unconscious bias about a patient’s perceived quality of life undermines equity and can play a role in our recommendations for patients of advanced age, with cognitive impairment, and those who live with a disability.
 

Question #2: How might you meet the patient’s medical needs in line with her goals?

Dr. Khawaja: In order to provide care consistent with the patient’s goals, the first step is to clarify these goals with Ms. S’s surrogate decision-maker, her daughter. In a previously autonomous but presently incapacitated patient, the previously expressed preferences in the form of a written AD should be respected. However, the AD is only a set of preferences completed at a particular time, not medical orders. The clinician and surrogate must consider how to apply the AD to the current clinical circumstances. The clinician should verify that the clinical circumstances specified in the AD have been met and evaluate if the patient’s preferences have changed since she originally completed the AD.

Surrogates are asked to use a Substituted Judgement Standard (i.e., what would the patient choose in this situation if known). This may differ from what the surrogate wants. If not known, surrogates are asked to use the Best Interest Standard (i.e., what would bring the most net benefit to the patient by weighing benefits and risks of treatment options). I often ask the surrogate, “Tell us about your loved one.” Or, “Knowing your loved one, what do you think would be the most important for her right now?”¹

I would also caution against bias in judging quality of life in patients with dementia, and using the term “futility,” as these concepts are inherently subjective. In general, when a colleague raises the issue of futility, I begin by asking, “…futile to achieve what goal?” That can help clarify some of the disagreement as some goals can be accomplished while others cannot.

Finally, I work to include other members of our team in these discussions. The distress of nurses, social workers, and others are important to acknowledge, validate, and involve in the problem-solving process.
 

Question #3: If you were Ms. S’s hospitalist, what would you do?

Dr. Khawaja: As the hospitalist caring for Ms. S, I would use the “four boxes” model as a helpful, clinically relevant and systematic approach to managing ethical concerns.²

This “four boxes” model gives us a practical framework to address these ethical principles by asking questions in four domains.

Medical indications: What is the nature of her current illness, and is it reversible or not? What is the probability of success of treatment options like mechanical ventilation? Are there adverse effects of treatment?

Patient preferences: Since Ms. S lacks capacity, does her daughter understand the benefits and burdens of treatment? What are the goals of treatment? Prolonging life? Minimizing discomfort? Spending time with loved ones? What burdens would the patient be willing to endure to reach her goals?

Quality of life: What would the patient’s quality of life be with and without the treatments?

Contextual features: My priorities would be building a relationship of trust with Ms. S’s daughter – by educating her about her mother’s clinical status, addressing her concerns and questions, and supporting her as we work through patient-centered decisions about what is best for her mother. Honest communication is a must, even if it means acknowledging uncertainties about the course of disease and prognosis.

These are not easy decisions for surrogates to make. They should be given time to process information and to make what they believe are the best decisions for their loved ones. It is critical for clinicians to provide honest and complete clinical information and to avoid value judgments, bias, or unreasonable time pressure. While one-on-one conversations are central, I find that multidisciplinary meetings allow all stakeholders to ask and answer vital questions and ideally to reach consensus in treatment planning.

Dr. Chase: In caring for Ms. S, I would use a structured approach to discussions with her daughter, such as the “SPIKES” protocol.³ Using open ended questions, I would ask about the patient’s and her daughter’s goals, values, and fears and provide support about the responsibility for shared-decision making and the difficulty of uncertainty. Reflecting statements can help in confirming understanding and showing attention (e.g. “I hear that avoiding discomfort would be important to your mother.”)

I find it helpful to emphasize my commitment to honesty and non-abandonment (a common fear among patients and families). By offering to provide recommendations about both disease-directed and palliative, comfort-focused interventions, the patient’s daughter has an opportunity to engage voluntarily in discussion. When asked about care that may have marginal benefit, I suggest time-limited trials.⁴ I do not offer non-beneficial treatments and if asked about such treatments, I note the underlying motive and why the treatment is not feasible (“I see that you are hoping that your mother will live longer, but I am concerned that tube feeding will not help because…”), offer preferable alternatives, and leave space for questions and emotions. It is important not to force a premature resolution of the situation through unilateral or coercive decisions⁵ (i.e., going off service does not mean I have to wrap up the existential crisis which is occurring.) A broader challenge is the grief and other emotions which accompany illness and death. I can neither prevent death nor grief, but I can offer my professional guidance and provide a supportive space for the patient and family to experience this transition. By acknowledging this, I center myself with the patient and family and we can work together toward a common goal of providing compassionate and ethical care.

Dr. Chase is associate professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco; and co-chair, Ethics Committee, San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Khawaja is assistant professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and a member of the Ethics Committee of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

References

1. Sulmasy DP, Snyder L. Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making. JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1946-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.159.

2. Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2006.

3. Baile WF, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302–311. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-302.

4. Chang DW, et al. Evaluation of time-limited trials among critically ill patients with advanced medical illnesses and reduction of nonbeneficial ICU treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):786–794. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.1000.

5. Sedig, L. What’s the role of autonomy in patient-and family-centered care when patients and family members don’t agree? AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(1):12-17. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.18.1.ecas2-1601.

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 64-year-old White woman with very few medical problems complains of bug bites. She had seen no bugs and had no visible bites. There is no rash. “So what bit me?” she asked, pulling her mask down for emphasis. How should I know? I thought, but didn’t say. She and I have been through this many times.

Before I could respond, she filled the pause with her usual complaints including how hard it is to get an appointment with me and how every appointment with me is a waste of her time. Ignoring the contradistinction of her charges, I took some satisfaction realizing she has just given me a topic to write about: The hateful patient.

Hateful patients are not diagnostic dilemmas, they are the patients whose name on your schedule evokes fury. They are frustrating, troublesome, rude, sometimes racist, misogynistic, depressing, hopeless, and disheartening. They call you, email you, and come to see you just to annoy you (so it seems). And they’re everywhere. According to one study, nearly one in six are “difficult patients.” It feels like more lately because the vaccine has brought haters back into clinic, just to get us.

But hateful patients aren’t new. In 1978, James E. Groves, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist, wrote a now-classic New England Journal of Medicine article about them called: Taking Care of the Hateful Patient. Even Osler, back in 1889, covered these patients in his lecture to University of Pennsylvania students, advising us to “deal gently with this deliciously credulous old human nature in which we work ... restrain your indignation.” But like much of Osler’s advice, it is easier said than done.

Dr. Groves is more helpful, and presents a model to understand them. Difficult patients, as we’d now call them, fall into four stereotypes: dependent clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help-rejectors, and self-destructive deniers. It’s Dr. Groves’s bottom line I found insightful. He says that, when patients create negative feelings in us, we’re more likely to make errors. He then gives sound advice: Set firm boundaries and learn to counter the countertransference these patients provoke. Don’t disavow or discharge, Dr. Groves advises, redirect these emotions to motivate you to dig deeper. There you’ll find clinical data that will facilitate understanding and enable better patient management. Yes, easier said.

In addition to Dr. Groves’s analysis of how we harm these patients, I’d add that these disagreeable, malingering patients also harm us doctors. The hangover from a difficult patient encounter can linger for several appointments later or, worse, carryover to home. And now with patient emails proliferating, demanding patients behave as if we have an inexhaustible ability to engage them. We don’t. Many physicians are struggling to care at all; their low empathy battery warnings are blinking red, less than 1% remaining.

What is toxic to us doctors is the maelstrom of cognitive dissonance these patients create in us. Have you ever felt relief to learn a difficult patient has “finally” died? How could we think such a thing?! Didn’t we choose medicine instead of Wall Street because we care about people? But manipulative patients can make us care less. We even use secret language with each other to protect ourselves from them, those GOMERs (get out of my emergency room), bouncebacks, patients with status dramaticus, and those ornery FTDs (failure to die). Save yourself, we say to each other, this patient will kill you.

Caring for my somatizing 64-year-old patient has been difficult, but writing this has helped me reframe our interaction. Unsurprisingly, at the end of her failed visit she asked when she could see me again. “I need to schedule now because I have to find a neighbor to watch my dogs. It takes two buses to come here and I can’t take them with me.” Ah, there’s the clinical data Dr. Groves said I’d find – she’s not here to hurt me, she’s here because I’m all she’s got. At least for this difficult patient, I have a plan. At the bottom of my note I type “RTC 3 mo.”

Dr. Benabio is director of healthcare transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The use of dragon’s blood is renowned among various medical traditions around the world.^1,2 It is known to confer anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, and wound healing benefits, among others. Dragon’s blood and its characteristic red sap has also been used in folk magic and as a coloring substance and varnish.¹ In addition, dragon’s blood resin is one of the many botanical agents with roots in traditional medicine that are among the bioactive ingredients used in the booming contemporary Korean cosmeceutical agent market.³This column will address some of the recent research on the cutaneous benefits of dragon’s blood resin obtained from several species of plants.

Rod/Moment

Many plants, only some have dermatologic properties

Essentially, the moniker “dragon’s blood” describes the deep red resin or sap that has been derived from multiple plant sources – primarily from the genera Daemonorops, Dracaena, Croton, and Pterocarpus – over multiple centuries.^2,4 In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), various plants have been used as dragon’s blood, including Butea monosperma, Liquidambar formosana, Daemonorops draco, and, more commonly now, Dracaena cochinchinensis.⁵

Chemical constituents and activity

Dragon’s blood represents the red exudate culled from 27 species of plants from four families. Among the six Dracaena plants (D. cochinchinensis, D. cambodiana, D. cinnabari, D. draco, D. loureiroi, and D. schizantha) from which dragon’s blood is derived, flavonoids and their oligomers are considered the main active constituents. Analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hypolipidemic, hypoglycemic, and cytotoxic activities have been associated with these botanicals.⁶

D. cochinchinensis is one source of the ethnomedicine “dragon’s blood” that has long been used in TCM. Contemporary studies have shown that the resin of D. cochinchinensis – key constituents of which include loureirin A, loureirin B, loureirin C, cochinchinenin, socotrin-4’-ol, 4’,7-dihydroxyflavan, 4-methylcholest-7-ene-3-ol, ethylparaben, resveratrol, and hydroxyphenol – exhibits antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antidiabetic, and antitumor activities. It has also been shown to support skin repair.4

In 2017, Wang et al. reported that flavonoids from artificially induced dragon’s blood of D. cambodiana showed antibacterial properties.⁷ The next year, Al Fatimi reported that the dragon’s blood derived from D. cinnabari is a key plant on Yemen’s Socotra Island, where it is used for its antifungal and antioxidant properties to treat various dermal, dental, eye, and gastrointestinal diseases in humans.⁸Croton lechleri (also one of the plants known as dragon’s blood), a medicinal plant found in the Amazon rainforest and characterized by its red sap, has been shown in preclinical studies to display anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, antifungal, and antineoplastic activity. Pona et al. note that, while clinical studies of C. lechleri suggest wound healing and antiviral effects, the current use of this plant has limited cutaneous applications.⁹

Wound healing activity

In 1995, Pieters et al. performed an in vivo study on rats to assess the wound healing activity of dragon’s blood (Croton spp.) from South America. In comparing the effects with those of synthetic proanthocyanidins, the researchers verified the beneficial impact of dragon’s blood in stimulating wound contraction, crust formation, new collagen development, and epithelial layer regeneration. The dragon’s blood component 3’,4-O-dimethylcedrusin was also found to enhance healing by promoting fibroblast and collagen formation, though it was not as effective as crude dragon’s blood. The authors ascribed this effect to the proanthocyanidins in the plant.¹⁰

Late in 2003, Jones published a literature review on the evidence related to Croton lechleri (known in South America as “sangre de drago” or dragon’s blood) in support of various biological effects, particularly anti-inflammatory and wound healing capability. The results from multiple in vitro and in vivo investigations buttressed previous ethnomedical justifications for the use of dragon’s blood to treat herpes, insect bites, stomach ulcers, tumors, wounds, and diarrhea, as well as other conditions. Jones added that the sap of the plant has exhibited low toxicity and has been well tolerated in clinical studies.¹¹

In 2012, Hu et al. investigated the impact of dragon’s blood powder with varying grain size on the transdermal absorption and adhesion of ZJHX paste, finding that, with decreasing grain size, penetration of dracorhodin increased, thus promoting transdermal permeability and adhesion.¹²

Lieu et al. assessed the wound healing potential of Resina Draconis, derived from D. cochinchinensis, which has long been used in traditional medicines by various cultures. In this 2013 evaluation, the investigators substantiated the traditional uses of this herb for wound healing, using excision and incision models in rats. Animals treated with D. cochinchinensis resin displayed significantly superior wound contraction and tensile strength as compared with controls, with histopathological results revealing better microvessel density and growth factor expression levels.¹³

In 2017, Jiang et al. showed that dracorhodin percolate, derived from dragon’s blood and used extensively to treat wound healing in TCM, accelerated wound healing in Wistar rats.¹⁴ A year later, they found that the use of dracorhodin perchlorate was effective in regulating fibroblast proliferation in vitro and in vivo to promote wound healing in rats. In addition, they noted that phosphorylated–extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) in the wound tissue significantly increased with treatment of dracorhodin perchlorate ointment. The researchers called for clinical trials testing this compound in humans as the next step.¹⁵

In 2015, Namjoyan et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 60 patients (between 14 and 65 years old) to assess the wound healing effect of a dragon’s blood cream on skin tag removal. Patients were visited every third day during this 3-week study, after which a significant difference in mean wound healing duration was identified. The investigators attributed the accelerated wound healing action to the phenolic constituents and alkaloid taspine in the resin. They also concluded that dragon’s blood warrants inclusion in the wound healing arsenal, while calling for studies in larger populations.¹⁶

Conclusion

The red resin extracts of multiple species of plants have and continue to be identified as “dragon’s blood.” This exudate has been used for various medical indications in traditional medicine for several centuries. Despite this lengthy history, modern research is hardly robust. Nevertheless, there are many credible reports of significant salutary activities associated with these resins and some evidence of cutaneous benefits. Much more research is necessary to determine how useful these ingredients are, despite their present use in a number of marketed cosmeceutical agents.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Gupta D et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Feb 12;115(3):361-80.

2. Jura-Morawiec J & Tulik. Chemoecology. 2016;26:101-5.

3. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):155-69.

4. Fan JY et al. Molecules. 2014 Jul 22;19(7):10650-69.

5. Zhang W et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Apr;41(7):1354-7.

6. Sun J et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Nov 15;244:112138.

7. Wang H et al. Fitoterapia. 2017 Sep;121:1-5.

8. Al-Fatimi M. Plants (Basel). 2018 Oct 26;7(4):91.

9. Pona A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2019 Mar;32(2):e12786.10. Pieters L et al. Phytomedicine. 1995 Jul;2(1):17-22.

11. Jones K. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Dec;9(6):877-96.

12. Hu Q et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2012 Dec;37(23):3549-53.

13. Liu H et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:709865.

14. Jiang XW et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017:8950516.

15. Jiang X et al. J Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Feb;136(2):66-72.

16. Namjoyan F et al. J Tradit Complement Med. 2015 Jan 22;6(1):37-40.

The use of dragon’s blood is renowned among various medical traditions around the world.^1,2 It is known to confer anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, and wound healing benefits, among others. Dragon’s blood and its characteristic red sap has also been used in folk magic and as a coloring substance and varnish.¹ In addition, dragon’s blood resin is one of the many botanical agents with roots in traditional medicine that are among the bioactive ingredients used in the booming contemporary Korean cosmeceutical agent market.³This column will address some of the recent research on the cutaneous benefits of dragon’s blood resin obtained from several species of plants.

Rod/Moment

Many plants, only some have dermatologic properties

Essentially, the moniker “dragon’s blood” describes the deep red resin or sap that has been derived from multiple plant sources – primarily from the genera Daemonorops, Dracaena, Croton, and Pterocarpus – over multiple centuries.^2,4 In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), various plants have been used as dragon’s blood, including Butea monosperma, Liquidambar formosana, Daemonorops draco, and, more commonly now, Dracaena cochinchinensis.⁵

Chemical constituents and activity

Dragon’s blood represents the red exudate culled from 27 species of plants from four families. Among the six Dracaena plants (D. cochinchinensis, D. cambodiana, D. cinnabari, D. draco, D. loureiroi, and D. schizantha) from which dragon’s blood is derived, flavonoids and their oligomers are considered the main active constituents. Analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hypolipidemic, hypoglycemic, and cytotoxic activities have been associated with these botanicals.⁶

D. cochinchinensis is one source of the ethnomedicine “dragon’s blood” that has long been used in TCM. Contemporary studies have shown that the resin of D. cochinchinensis – key constituents of which include loureirin A, loureirin B, loureirin C, cochinchinenin, socotrin-4’-ol, 4’,7-dihydroxyflavan, 4-methylcholest-7-ene-3-ol, ethylparaben, resveratrol, and hydroxyphenol – exhibits antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antidiabetic, and antitumor activities. It has also been shown to support skin repair.4

In 2017, Wang et al. reported that flavonoids from artificially induced dragon’s blood of D. cambodiana showed antibacterial properties.⁷ The next year, Al Fatimi reported that the dragon’s blood derived from D. cinnabari is a key plant on Yemen’s Socotra Island, where it is used for its antifungal and antioxidant properties to treat various dermal, dental, eye, and gastrointestinal diseases in humans.⁸Croton lechleri (also one of the plants known as dragon’s blood), a medicinal plant found in the Amazon rainforest and characterized by its red sap, has been shown in preclinical studies to display anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, antifungal, and antineoplastic activity. Pona et al. note that, while clinical studies of C. lechleri suggest wound healing and antiviral effects, the current use of this plant has limited cutaneous applications.⁹

Wound healing activity

In 1995, Pieters et al. performed an in vivo study on rats to assess the wound healing activity of dragon’s blood (Croton spp.) from South America. In comparing the effects with those of synthetic proanthocyanidins, the researchers verified the beneficial impact of dragon’s blood in stimulating wound contraction, crust formation, new collagen development, and epithelial layer regeneration. The dragon’s blood component 3’,4-O-dimethylcedrusin was also found to enhance healing by promoting fibroblast and collagen formation, though it was not as effective as crude dragon’s blood. The authors ascribed this effect to the proanthocyanidins in the plant.¹⁰

Late in 2003, Jones published a literature review on the evidence related to Croton lechleri (known in South America as “sangre de drago” or dragon’s blood) in support of various biological effects, particularly anti-inflammatory and wound healing capability. The results from multiple in vitro and in vivo investigations buttressed previous ethnomedical justifications for the use of dragon’s blood to treat herpes, insect bites, stomach ulcers, tumors, wounds, and diarrhea, as well as other conditions. Jones added that the sap of the plant has exhibited low toxicity and has been well tolerated in clinical studies.¹¹

In 2012, Hu et al. investigated the impact of dragon’s blood powder with varying grain size on the transdermal absorption and adhesion of ZJHX paste, finding that, with decreasing grain size, penetration of dracorhodin increased, thus promoting transdermal permeability and adhesion.¹²

Lieu et al. assessed the wound healing potential of Resina Draconis, derived from D. cochinchinensis, which has long been used in traditional medicines by various cultures. In this 2013 evaluation, the investigators substantiated the traditional uses of this herb for wound healing, using excision and incision models in rats. Animals treated with D. cochinchinensis resin displayed significantly superior wound contraction and tensile strength as compared with controls, with histopathological results revealing better microvessel density and growth factor expression levels.¹³

In 2017, Jiang et al. showed that dracorhodin percolate, derived from dragon’s blood and used extensively to treat wound healing in TCM, accelerated wound healing in Wistar rats.¹⁴ A year later, they found that the use of dracorhodin perchlorate was effective in regulating fibroblast proliferation in vitro and in vivo to promote wound healing in rats. In addition, they noted that phosphorylated–extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) in the wound tissue significantly increased with treatment of dracorhodin perchlorate ointment. The researchers called for clinical trials testing this compound in humans as the next step.¹⁵

In 2015, Namjoyan et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 60 patients (between 14 and 65 years old) to assess the wound healing effect of a dragon’s blood cream on skin tag removal. Patients were visited every third day during this 3-week study, after which a significant difference in mean wound healing duration was identified. The investigators attributed the accelerated wound healing action to the phenolic constituents and alkaloid taspine in the resin. They also concluded that dragon’s blood warrants inclusion in the wound healing arsenal, while calling for studies in larger populations.¹⁶

Conclusion

The red resin extracts of multiple species of plants have and continue to be identified as “dragon’s blood.” This exudate has been used for various medical indications in traditional medicine for several centuries. Despite this lengthy history, modern research is hardly robust. Nevertheless, there are many credible reports of significant salutary activities associated with these resins and some evidence of cutaneous benefits. Much more research is necessary to determine how useful these ingredients are, despite their present use in a number of marketed cosmeceutical agents.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Gupta D et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Feb 12;115(3):361-80.

2. Jura-Morawiec J & Tulik. Chemoecology. 2016;26:101-5.

3. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):155-69.

4. Fan JY et al. Molecules. 2014 Jul 22;19(7):10650-69.

5. Zhang W et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Apr;41(7):1354-7.

6. Sun J et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Nov 15;244:112138.

7. Wang H et al. Fitoterapia. 2017 Sep;121:1-5.

8. Al-Fatimi M. Plants (Basel). 2018 Oct 26;7(4):91.

9. Pona A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2019 Mar;32(2):e12786.10. Pieters L et al. Phytomedicine. 1995 Jul;2(1):17-22.

11. Jones K. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Dec;9(6):877-96.

12. Hu Q et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2012 Dec;37(23):3549-53.

13. Liu H et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:709865.

14. Jiang XW et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017:8950516.

15. Jiang X et al. J Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Feb;136(2):66-72.

16. Namjoyan F et al. J Tradit Complement Med. 2015 Jan 22;6(1):37-40.

The use of dragon’s blood is renowned among various medical traditions around the world.^1,2 It is known to confer anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antitumor, antimicrobial, and wound healing benefits, among others. Dragon’s blood and its characteristic red sap has also been used in folk magic and as a coloring substance and varnish.¹ In addition, dragon’s blood resin is one of the many botanical agents with roots in traditional medicine that are among the bioactive ingredients used in the booming contemporary Korean cosmeceutical agent market.³This column will address some of the recent research on the cutaneous benefits of dragon’s blood resin obtained from several species of plants.

Rod/Moment

Many plants, only some have dermatologic properties

Essentially, the moniker “dragon’s blood” describes the deep red resin or sap that has been derived from multiple plant sources – primarily from the genera Daemonorops, Dracaena, Croton, and Pterocarpus – over multiple centuries.^2,4 In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), various plants have been used as dragon’s blood, including Butea monosperma, Liquidambar formosana, Daemonorops draco, and, more commonly now, Dracaena cochinchinensis.⁵

Chemical constituents and activity

Dragon’s blood represents the red exudate culled from 27 species of plants from four families. Among the six Dracaena plants (D. cochinchinensis, D. cambodiana, D. cinnabari, D. draco, D. loureiroi, and D. schizantha) from which dragon’s blood is derived, flavonoids and their oligomers are considered the main active constituents. Analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, hypolipidemic, hypoglycemic, and cytotoxic activities have been associated with these botanicals.⁶

D. cochinchinensis is one source of the ethnomedicine “dragon’s blood” that has long been used in TCM. Contemporary studies have shown that the resin of D. cochinchinensis – key constituents of which include loureirin A, loureirin B, loureirin C, cochinchinenin, socotrin-4’-ol, 4’,7-dihydroxyflavan, 4-methylcholest-7-ene-3-ol, ethylparaben, resveratrol, and hydroxyphenol – exhibits antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antidiabetic, and antitumor activities. It has also been shown to support skin repair.4

In 2017, Wang et al. reported that flavonoids from artificially induced dragon’s blood of D. cambodiana showed antibacterial properties.⁷ The next year, Al Fatimi reported that the dragon’s blood derived from D. cinnabari is a key plant on Yemen’s Socotra Island, where it is used for its antifungal and antioxidant properties to treat various dermal, dental, eye, and gastrointestinal diseases in humans.⁸Croton lechleri (also one of the plants known as dragon’s blood), a medicinal plant found in the Amazon rainforest and characterized by its red sap, has been shown in preclinical studies to display anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, antifungal, and antineoplastic activity. Pona et al. note that, while clinical studies of C. lechleri suggest wound healing and antiviral effects, the current use of this plant has limited cutaneous applications.⁹

Wound healing activity

In 1995, Pieters et al. performed an in vivo study on rats to assess the wound healing activity of dragon’s blood (Croton spp.) from South America. In comparing the effects with those of synthetic proanthocyanidins, the researchers verified the beneficial impact of dragon’s blood in stimulating wound contraction, crust formation, new collagen development, and epithelial layer regeneration. The dragon’s blood component 3’,4-O-dimethylcedrusin was also found to enhance healing by promoting fibroblast and collagen formation, though it was not as effective as crude dragon’s blood. The authors ascribed this effect to the proanthocyanidins in the plant.¹⁰

Late in 2003, Jones published a literature review on the evidence related to Croton lechleri (known in South America as “sangre de drago” or dragon’s blood) in support of various biological effects, particularly anti-inflammatory and wound healing capability. The results from multiple in vitro and in vivo investigations buttressed previous ethnomedical justifications for the use of dragon’s blood to treat herpes, insect bites, stomach ulcers, tumors, wounds, and diarrhea, as well as other conditions. Jones added that the sap of the plant has exhibited low toxicity and has been well tolerated in clinical studies.¹¹

In 2012, Hu et al. investigated the impact of dragon’s blood powder with varying grain size on the transdermal absorption and adhesion of ZJHX paste, finding that, with decreasing grain size, penetration of dracorhodin increased, thus promoting transdermal permeability and adhesion.¹²

Lieu et al. assessed the wound healing potential of Resina Draconis, derived from D. cochinchinensis, which has long been used in traditional medicines by various cultures. In this 2013 evaluation, the investigators substantiated the traditional uses of this herb for wound healing, using excision and incision models in rats. Animals treated with D. cochinchinensis resin displayed significantly superior wound contraction and tensile strength as compared with controls, with histopathological results revealing better microvessel density and growth factor expression levels.¹³

In 2017, Jiang et al. showed that dracorhodin percolate, derived from dragon’s blood and used extensively to treat wound healing in TCM, accelerated wound healing in Wistar rats.¹⁴ A year later, they found that the use of dracorhodin perchlorate was effective in regulating fibroblast proliferation in vitro and in vivo to promote wound healing in rats. In addition, they noted that phosphorylated–extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) in the wound tissue significantly increased with treatment of dracorhodin perchlorate ointment. The researchers called for clinical trials testing this compound in humans as the next step.¹⁵

In 2015, Namjoyan et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 60 patients (between 14 and 65 years old) to assess the wound healing effect of a dragon’s blood cream on skin tag removal. Patients were visited every third day during this 3-week study, after which a significant difference in mean wound healing duration was identified. The investigators attributed the accelerated wound healing action to the phenolic constituents and alkaloid taspine in the resin. They also concluded that dragon’s blood warrants inclusion in the wound healing arsenal, while calling for studies in larger populations.¹⁶

Conclusion

The red resin extracts of multiple species of plants have and continue to be identified as “dragon’s blood.” This exudate has been used for various medical indications in traditional medicine for several centuries. Despite this lengthy history, modern research is hardly robust. Nevertheless, there are many credible reports of significant salutary activities associated with these resins and some evidence of cutaneous benefits. Much more research is necessary to determine how useful these ingredients are, despite their present use in a number of marketed cosmeceutical agents.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Gupta D et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008 Feb 12;115(3):361-80.

2. Jura-Morawiec J & Tulik. Chemoecology. 2016;26:101-5.

3. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):155-69.

4. Fan JY et al. Molecules. 2014 Jul 22;19(7):10650-69.

5. Zhang W et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Apr;41(7):1354-7.

6. Sun J et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019 Nov 15;244:112138.

7. Wang H et al. Fitoterapia. 2017 Sep;121:1-5.

8. Al-Fatimi M. Plants (Basel). 2018 Oct 26;7(4):91.

9. Pona A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2019 Mar;32(2):e12786.10. Pieters L et al. Phytomedicine. 1995 Jul;2(1):17-22.

11. Jones K. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Dec;9(6):877-96.

12. Hu Q et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2012 Dec;37(23):3549-53.

13. Liu H et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:709865.

14. Jiang XW et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2017:8950516.

15. Jiang X et al. J Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Feb;136(2):66-72.

16. Namjoyan F et al. J Tradit Complement Med. 2015 Jan 22;6(1):37-40.

After the teledermatology consultation, an x-ray was recommended. The x-ray showed an elongated irregular radiopaque mass projecting from the anterior medial aspect of the midshaft of the distal phalanx of the great toe (Picture 3). With these findings, subungual exostosis was suspected, and she was referred to orthopedic surgery for excision of the lesion. Histopathology showed a stack of trabecular bone with a fibrocartilaginous cap, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis.

Courtesy Dr. Puong To, Southern California Medical Group

Subungual exostosis is a benign osteocartilaginous tumor, first described by Dupuytren in 1874. These lesions are rare and are seen mainly in children and young adults. Females appear to be affected more often than males.¹ In a systematic review by DaCambra and colleagues, 55% of the cases occur in patients aged younger than 18 years, and the hallux was the most commonly affected digit, though any finger or toe can be affected.² There are reported case of congenital multiple exostosis delineated to translocation t(X;6)(q22;q13-14).³

The exact cause of these lesions is unknown, but there are multiple theories, which include a reactive process secondary to trauma, infection, or genetic causes. Pathologic examination of the lesions shows an osseous center covered by a fibrocartilaginous cap. There is proliferation of spindle cells that generate cartilage, which later forms trabecular bone.⁴

On physical examination, subungual exostosis appear like a firm, fixed nodule with a hyperkeratotic smooth surface at the distal end of the nail bed, that slowly grows and can distort and lift up the nail. Dermoscopy features of these lesions include vascular ectasia, hyperkeratosis, onycholysis, and ulceration.

The differential diagnosis of subungual growths includes osteochondromas, which can present in a similar way but are rarer. Pathologic examination is usually required to differentiate between both lesions.⁵ In exostoses, bone is formed directly from fibrous tissue, whereas in osteochondromas they derive from enchondral ossification.⁶ The cartilaginous cap of this lesion is what helps to differentiate it in histopathology. In subungual exostosis, the cap is composed of fibrocartilage, while in osteochondromas it is made of hyaline cartilage similar to what is seen in normal growing epiphysis.⁵ Subungual exostosis can be confused with pyogenic granulomas and verruca, and often are treated as such, which delays appropriate surgical management.

Firm, slow-growing tumors in the fingers or toes of children should raise suspicion for underlying bony lesions like subungual exostosis and osteochondromas. X-rays of the lesion should be performed in order to clarify the diagnosis. Referral to orthopedic surgery is needed for definitive surgical management.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

1. Zhang W et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2020 Jun 1;6(8):725-6.

2. DaCambra MP et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Apr;472(4):1251-9.

3. Torlazzi C et al. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1972-6.

4. Calonje E et al. McKee’s pathology of the skin: With clinical correlations. (4th ed.) Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders, 2012.

5. Lee SK et al. Foot Ankle Int. 2007 May;28(5):595-601.

6. Mavrogenis A et al. Orthopedics. 2008 Oct;31(10).

After the teledermatology consultation, an x-ray was recommended. The x-ray showed an elongated irregular radiopaque mass projecting from the anterior medial aspect of the midshaft of the distal phalanx of the great toe (Picture 3). With these findings, subungual exostosis was suspected, and she was referred to orthopedic surgery for excision of the lesion. Histopathology showed a stack of trabecular bone with a fibrocartilaginous cap, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis.

Courtesy Dr. Puong To, Southern California Medical Group

Subungual exostosis is a benign osteocartilaginous tumor, first described by Dupuytren in 1874. These lesions are rare and are seen mainly in children and young adults. Females appear to be affected more often than males.¹ In a systematic review by DaCambra and colleagues, 55% of the cases occur in patients aged younger than 18 years, and the hallux was the most commonly affected digit, though any finger or toe can be affected.² There are reported case of congenital multiple exostosis delineated to translocation t(X;6)(q22;q13-14).³

The exact cause of these lesions is unknown, but there are multiple theories, which include a reactive process secondary to trauma, infection, or genetic causes. Pathologic examination of the lesions shows an osseous center covered by a fibrocartilaginous cap. There is proliferation of spindle cells that generate cartilage, which later forms trabecular bone.⁴

On physical examination, subungual exostosis appear like a firm, fixed nodule with a hyperkeratotic smooth surface at the distal end of the nail bed, that slowly grows and can distort and lift up the nail. Dermoscopy features of these lesions include vascular ectasia, hyperkeratosis, onycholysis, and ulceration.

The differential diagnosis of subungual growths includes osteochondromas, which can present in a similar way but are rarer. Pathologic examination is usually required to differentiate between both lesions.⁵ In exostoses, bone is formed directly from fibrous tissue, whereas in osteochondromas they derive from enchondral ossification.⁶ The cartilaginous cap of this lesion is what helps to differentiate it in histopathology. In subungual exostosis, the cap is composed of fibrocartilage, while in osteochondromas it is made of hyaline cartilage similar to what is seen in normal growing epiphysis.⁵ Subungual exostosis can be confused with pyogenic granulomas and verruca, and often are treated as such, which delays appropriate surgical management.

Firm, slow-growing tumors in the fingers or toes of children should raise suspicion for underlying bony lesions like subungual exostosis and osteochondromas. X-rays of the lesion should be performed in order to clarify the diagnosis. Referral to orthopedic surgery is needed for definitive surgical management.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

1. Zhang W et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2020 Jun 1;6(8):725-6.

2. DaCambra MP et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Apr;472(4):1251-9.

3. Torlazzi C et al. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1972-6.

4. Calonje E et al. McKee’s pathology of the skin: With clinical correlations. (4th ed.) Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders, 2012.

5. Lee SK et al. Foot Ankle Int. 2007 May;28(5):595-601.

6. Mavrogenis A et al. Orthopedics. 2008 Oct;31(10).

After the teledermatology consultation, an x-ray was recommended. The x-ray showed an elongated irregular radiopaque mass projecting from the anterior medial aspect of the midshaft of the distal phalanx of the great toe (Picture 3). With these findings, subungual exostosis was suspected, and she was referred to orthopedic surgery for excision of the lesion. Histopathology showed a stack of trabecular bone with a fibrocartilaginous cap, confirming the diagnosis of subungual exostosis.

Courtesy Dr. Puong To, Southern California Medical Group

Subungual exostosis is a benign osteocartilaginous tumor, first described by Dupuytren in 1874. These lesions are rare and are seen mainly in children and young adults. Females appear to be affected more often than males.¹ In a systematic review by DaCambra and colleagues, 55% of the cases occur in patients aged younger than 18 years, and the hallux was the most commonly affected digit, though any finger or toe can be affected.² There are reported case of congenital multiple exostosis delineated to translocation t(X;6)(q22;q13-14).³

The exact cause of these lesions is unknown, but there are multiple theories, which include a reactive process secondary to trauma, infection, or genetic causes. Pathologic examination of the lesions shows an osseous center covered by a fibrocartilaginous cap. There is proliferation of spindle cells that generate cartilage, which later forms trabecular bone.⁴

On physical examination, subungual exostosis appear like a firm, fixed nodule with a hyperkeratotic smooth surface at the distal end of the nail bed, that slowly grows and can distort and lift up the nail. Dermoscopy features of these lesions include vascular ectasia, hyperkeratosis, onycholysis, and ulceration.

The differential diagnosis of subungual growths includes osteochondromas, which can present in a similar way but are rarer. Pathologic examination is usually required to differentiate between both lesions.⁵ In exostoses, bone is formed directly from fibrous tissue, whereas in osteochondromas they derive from enchondral ossification.⁶ The cartilaginous cap of this lesion is what helps to differentiate it in histopathology. In subungual exostosis, the cap is composed of fibrocartilage, while in osteochondromas it is made of hyaline cartilage similar to what is seen in normal growing epiphysis.⁵ Subungual exostosis can be confused with pyogenic granulomas and verruca, and often are treated as such, which delays appropriate surgical management.

Firm, slow-growing tumors in the fingers or toes of children should raise suspicion for underlying bony lesions like subungual exostosis and osteochondromas. X-rays of the lesion should be performed in order to clarify the diagnosis. Referral to orthopedic surgery is needed for definitive surgical management.

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

References

1. Zhang W et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2020 Jun 1;6(8):725-6.

2. DaCambra MP et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Apr;472(4):1251-9.

3. Torlazzi C et al. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:1972-6.

4. Calonje E et al. McKee’s pathology of the skin: With clinical correlations. (4th ed.) Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders, 2012.

5. Lee SK et al. Foot Ankle Int. 2007 May;28(5):595-601.

6. Mavrogenis A et al. Orthopedics. 2008 Oct;31(10).

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Doctors Company

On April 5, 2021, a requirement of the 21st Century Cures Act went into effect: Patients must be able to access information in their EHRs “without delay.” (This requirement does not apply to paper records.) The Cures Act prohibition against information blocking, often referred to as an “open notes” provision, provides patients with transparency in the outcomes of their health care via convenient access to information in their EHR, which can positively or negatively impact the patient-doctor relationship.

Patient access to records is not new, and neither is the Cures Act, which dates to 2016. What is new is the requirement that patients have electronic records access that is fast and easy. This requirement is expected to result in more patients – still a small proportion overall, but more patients – accessing additional EHR information, including providers’ notes.

The requirement to provide patients with EHR access raises questions for health care practices. Some questions are logistical, and some are relational. Concerns include the potential for increased time for patient education, or patient requests for changes to their records that the clinician cannot support.

Health care providers should understand the good, bad, and ugly implications of the Cures Act open notes provisions so they can meet the requirements and reap their benefits, while avoiding the potential for fines or sanctions based on noncompliance, or other negative impacts.
 

Good news about open notes

Many patients feel better about their provider after reading a note. Positive effects on the patient-provider relationship may be most significant among vulnerable patients, such as those with fewer years of formal education.

Further, open notes have positive impacts on patient engagement and understanding. Patients report that reading notes is a way to better understand and feel more in control of their health care. They also say it builds trust with their provider. The nonprofit organization OpenNotes (not a part of the Cures Act) cites helping laypeople maintain trust in scientific medicine as one benefit of the transparency created by the Cures Act open notes provisions.
 

Bad news about open notes

Concerns about open notes mainly revolve around the potential for conflicts with patients and potential time conflicts.

Concerns include:

• Timing: The originally planned implementation date for the open notes provisions in the Cures Act was November 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was pushed back to April 2021. However, many providers and practices are still feeling the pandemic’s effects, leading to the question: “Will new demands never end?”
• Uncertainty about the documentation process: Most patients will not understand clinical shorthand, and providers may need added time for explanation. Providers are wondering: “How can I make my notes comprehensible to patients while still writing them quickly?”
• Technology: Some EHR vendors are still racing to provide services that allow practices to remain in compliance with the Cures Act. It may be necessary for a provider to call their EHR vendor and say: “What are you doing to ensure my interoperability compliance?” Meanwhile, secure drop box options for records requests provide a workaround.

Ugly news about open notes

Some patient requests for record amendment are legitimate and easily handled. Some patients, however, will request removal of material they find embarrassing, even though it is accurate.

More frequent requests for records changes from patients could increase already weighty administrative burdens on providers. Worse, some of these requests will be for changes providers cannot support, and making time for careful conversations with patients and providing written responses for requests that are rejected will be a challenge. Inevitably, some of these conversations will not go well, whether through the patient feeling the provider did not adequately respond to their concerns, or through the patient insisting on unreasonable demands. These negative relationship outcomes will add emotional stress on both the patient and the provider, as well as a reputational threat to providers from angry patients posting negative reviews online.

More tangibly, noncompliance with the open notes requirement carries the potential for fines, penalties, and/or sanctions from medical boards. The specifics of potential penalties are not yet known – there are more changes coming with the Cures Act.
 

Making changes in open notes

Patients will ask providers to amend their medical records. Be familiar with what the patient has the right to ask, what the provider can grant and/or refuse, and how to amend notes.

Here are some highlights:

• Patients have the right to request amendments to their medical records: HIPAA requires a signed, dated request from the patient regarding what they want changed and why.
• Providers have the right to determine whether the requested amendment will be made: The provider must respond, in writing, within 60 days of receipt of the patient’s request.
• Common reasons to deny a patient’s request include that the provider who received the request did not create the record entry, or that the medical record is accurate as is.
• The patient’s request and the provider’s response both become part of the patient’s medical record.

Strategies for success

When composing notes, certain simple strategies will raise the odds that notes will be well understood and well received. Beyond being clear and succinct, strategies for success include composing at least a portion of the note as instructions directly addressed to the patient – “Start taking lisinopril and check your blood pressure twice a week” versus “Initiated lisinopril and instructed her to check her blood pressure twice a week” – and providing a list of commonly used medical terms and abbreviations.

For an in-depth review of strategies for success when composing notes, see “12 Strategies for Success With Open Notes in Healthcare: The Cures Act.”
 

Exceptions

Unless an exception applies, clinical notes must not be blocked, but the Cures Act allows for a fairly long list of specific, well-delineated exceptions. For instance, a record can be blocked if a provider believes that viewing a note presents a substantial risk of harm to the physical safety of the patient or someone else. The Cures Act also recognizes exemptions that apply to certain caregiving situations, such as when parents attempt to access confidential parts of an adolescent child’s records.

For information regarding exceptions to open notes, please see “What Open Notes Exceptions Does the Cures Act Allow?”
 

Seeing open notes as part of high-touch, high-value care

While many physicians and other providers have anticipated open notes with dread, most outcomes so far have been positive. Patients have reacted well to clarity. They have used open notes as a tool to improve their own understanding of and adherence to care instructions. When patients have noted valid issues or miscommunications, they have appreciated being able to quickly clear them up. More than an administrative burden, open notes present an opportunity to improve documentation, patient-provider relationships, and patient safety. By improving patient adherence to treatment plans, open notes have the potential to improve provider satisfaction, as well.

Chad Anguilm, MBA, is vice president, in-practice technology services, Medical Advantage, part of TDC Group. Richard F. Cahill, JD, is vice president and associate general counsel, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group. Kathleen Stillwell, MPA/HSA, RN, is senior patient safety risk manager, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Doctors Company

On April 5, 2021, a requirement of the 21st Century Cures Act went into effect: Patients must be able to access information in their EHRs “without delay.” (This requirement does not apply to paper records.) The Cures Act prohibition against information blocking, often referred to as an “open notes” provision, provides patients with transparency in the outcomes of their health care via convenient access to information in their EHR, which can positively or negatively impact the patient-doctor relationship.

Patient access to records is not new, and neither is the Cures Act, which dates to 2016. What is new is the requirement that patients have electronic records access that is fast and easy. This requirement is expected to result in more patients – still a small proportion overall, but more patients – accessing additional EHR information, including providers’ notes.

The requirement to provide patients with EHR access raises questions for health care practices. Some questions are logistical, and some are relational. Concerns include the potential for increased time for patient education, or patient requests for changes to their records that the clinician cannot support.

Health care providers should understand the good, bad, and ugly implications of the Cures Act open notes provisions so they can meet the requirements and reap their benefits, while avoiding the potential for fines or sanctions based on noncompliance, or other negative impacts.
 

Good news about open notes

Many patients feel better about their provider after reading a note. Positive effects on the patient-provider relationship may be most significant among vulnerable patients, such as those with fewer years of formal education.

Further, open notes have positive impacts on patient engagement and understanding. Patients report that reading notes is a way to better understand and feel more in control of their health care. They also say it builds trust with their provider. The nonprofit organization OpenNotes (not a part of the Cures Act) cites helping laypeople maintain trust in scientific medicine as one benefit of the transparency created by the Cures Act open notes provisions.
 

Bad news about open notes

Concerns about open notes mainly revolve around the potential for conflicts with patients and potential time conflicts.

Concerns include:

• Timing: The originally planned implementation date for the open notes provisions in the Cures Act was November 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was pushed back to April 2021. However, many providers and practices are still feeling the pandemic’s effects, leading to the question: “Will new demands never end?”
• Uncertainty about the documentation process: Most patients will not understand clinical shorthand, and providers may need added time for explanation. Providers are wondering: “How can I make my notes comprehensible to patients while still writing them quickly?”
• Technology: Some EHR vendors are still racing to provide services that allow practices to remain in compliance with the Cures Act. It may be necessary for a provider to call their EHR vendor and say: “What are you doing to ensure my interoperability compliance?” Meanwhile, secure drop box options for records requests provide a workaround.

Ugly news about open notes

Some patient requests for record amendment are legitimate and easily handled. Some patients, however, will request removal of material they find embarrassing, even though it is accurate.

More frequent requests for records changes from patients could increase already weighty administrative burdens on providers. Worse, some of these requests will be for changes providers cannot support, and making time for careful conversations with patients and providing written responses for requests that are rejected will be a challenge. Inevitably, some of these conversations will not go well, whether through the patient feeling the provider did not adequately respond to their concerns, or through the patient insisting on unreasonable demands. These negative relationship outcomes will add emotional stress on both the patient and the provider, as well as a reputational threat to providers from angry patients posting negative reviews online.

More tangibly, noncompliance with the open notes requirement carries the potential for fines, penalties, and/or sanctions from medical boards. The specifics of potential penalties are not yet known – there are more changes coming with the Cures Act.
 

Making changes in open notes

Patients will ask providers to amend their medical records. Be familiar with what the patient has the right to ask, what the provider can grant and/or refuse, and how to amend notes.

Here are some highlights:

• Patients have the right to request amendments to their medical records: HIPAA requires a signed, dated request from the patient regarding what they want changed and why.
• Providers have the right to determine whether the requested amendment will be made: The provider must respond, in writing, within 60 days of receipt of the patient’s request.
• Common reasons to deny a patient’s request include that the provider who received the request did not create the record entry, or that the medical record is accurate as is.
• The patient’s request and the provider’s response both become part of the patient’s medical record.

Strategies for success

When composing notes, certain simple strategies will raise the odds that notes will be well understood and well received. Beyond being clear and succinct, strategies for success include composing at least a portion of the note as instructions directly addressed to the patient – “Start taking lisinopril and check your blood pressure twice a week” versus “Initiated lisinopril and instructed her to check her blood pressure twice a week” – and providing a list of commonly used medical terms and abbreviations.

For an in-depth review of strategies for success when composing notes, see “12 Strategies for Success With Open Notes in Healthcare: The Cures Act.”
 

Exceptions

Unless an exception applies, clinical notes must not be blocked, but the Cures Act allows for a fairly long list of specific, well-delineated exceptions. For instance, a record can be blocked if a provider believes that viewing a note presents a substantial risk of harm to the physical safety of the patient or someone else. The Cures Act also recognizes exemptions that apply to certain caregiving situations, such as when parents attempt to access confidential parts of an adolescent child’s records.

For information regarding exceptions to open notes, please see “What Open Notes Exceptions Does the Cures Act Allow?”
 

Seeing open notes as part of high-touch, high-value care

While many physicians and other providers have anticipated open notes with dread, most outcomes so far have been positive. Patients have reacted well to clarity. They have used open notes as a tool to improve their own understanding of and adherence to care instructions. When patients have noted valid issues or miscommunications, they have appreciated being able to quickly clear them up. More than an administrative burden, open notes present an opportunity to improve documentation, patient-provider relationships, and patient safety. By improving patient adherence to treatment plans, open notes have the potential to improve provider satisfaction, as well.

Chad Anguilm, MBA, is vice president, in-practice technology services, Medical Advantage, part of TDC Group. Richard F. Cahill, JD, is vice president and associate general counsel, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group. Kathleen Stillwell, MPA/HSA, RN, is senior patient safety risk manager, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Doctors Company

On April 5, 2021, a requirement of the 21st Century Cures Act went into effect: Patients must be able to access information in their EHRs “without delay.” (This requirement does not apply to paper records.) The Cures Act prohibition against information blocking, often referred to as an “open notes” provision, provides patients with transparency in the outcomes of their health care via convenient access to information in their EHR, which can positively or negatively impact the patient-doctor relationship.

Patient access to records is not new, and neither is the Cures Act, which dates to 2016. What is new is the requirement that patients have electronic records access that is fast and easy. This requirement is expected to result in more patients – still a small proportion overall, but more patients – accessing additional EHR information, including providers’ notes.

The requirement to provide patients with EHR access raises questions for health care practices. Some questions are logistical, and some are relational. Concerns include the potential for increased time for patient education, or patient requests for changes to their records that the clinician cannot support.

Health care providers should understand the good, bad, and ugly implications of the Cures Act open notes provisions so they can meet the requirements and reap their benefits, while avoiding the potential for fines or sanctions based on noncompliance, or other negative impacts.
 

Good news about open notes

Many patients feel better about their provider after reading a note. Positive effects on the patient-provider relationship may be most significant among vulnerable patients, such as those with fewer years of formal education.

Further, open notes have positive impacts on patient engagement and understanding. Patients report that reading notes is a way to better understand and feel more in control of their health care. They also say it builds trust with their provider. The nonprofit organization OpenNotes (not a part of the Cures Act) cites helping laypeople maintain trust in scientific medicine as one benefit of the transparency created by the Cures Act open notes provisions.
 

Bad news about open notes

Concerns about open notes mainly revolve around the potential for conflicts with patients and potential time conflicts.

Concerns include:

• Timing: The originally planned implementation date for the open notes provisions in the Cures Act was November 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was pushed back to April 2021. However, many providers and practices are still feeling the pandemic’s effects, leading to the question: “Will new demands never end?”
• Uncertainty about the documentation process: Most patients will not understand clinical shorthand, and providers may need added time for explanation. Providers are wondering: “How can I make my notes comprehensible to patients while still writing them quickly?”
• Technology: Some EHR vendors are still racing to provide services that allow practices to remain in compliance with the Cures Act. It may be necessary for a provider to call their EHR vendor and say: “What are you doing to ensure my interoperability compliance?” Meanwhile, secure drop box options for records requests provide a workaround.

Ugly news about open notes

Some patient requests for record amendment are legitimate and easily handled. Some patients, however, will request removal of material they find embarrassing, even though it is accurate.

More frequent requests for records changes from patients could increase already weighty administrative burdens on providers. Worse, some of these requests will be for changes providers cannot support, and making time for careful conversations with patients and providing written responses for requests that are rejected will be a challenge. Inevitably, some of these conversations will not go well, whether through the patient feeling the provider did not adequately respond to their concerns, or through the patient insisting on unreasonable demands. These negative relationship outcomes will add emotional stress on both the patient and the provider, as well as a reputational threat to providers from angry patients posting negative reviews online.

More tangibly, noncompliance with the open notes requirement carries the potential for fines, penalties, and/or sanctions from medical boards. The specifics of potential penalties are not yet known – there are more changes coming with the Cures Act.
 

Making changes in open notes

Patients will ask providers to amend their medical records. Be familiar with what the patient has the right to ask, what the provider can grant and/or refuse, and how to amend notes.

Here are some highlights:

• Patients have the right to request amendments to their medical records: HIPAA requires a signed, dated request from the patient regarding what they want changed and why.
• Providers have the right to determine whether the requested amendment will be made: The provider must respond, in writing, within 60 days of receipt of the patient’s request.
• Common reasons to deny a patient’s request include that the provider who received the request did not create the record entry, or that the medical record is accurate as is.
• The patient’s request and the provider’s response both become part of the patient’s medical record.

Strategies for success

When composing notes, certain simple strategies will raise the odds that notes will be well understood and well received. Beyond being clear and succinct, strategies for success include composing at least a portion of the note as instructions directly addressed to the patient – “Start taking lisinopril and check your blood pressure twice a week” versus “Initiated lisinopril and instructed her to check her blood pressure twice a week” – and providing a list of commonly used medical terms and abbreviations.

For an in-depth review of strategies for success when composing notes, see “12 Strategies for Success With Open Notes in Healthcare: The Cures Act.”
 

Exceptions

Unless an exception applies, clinical notes must not be blocked, but the Cures Act allows for a fairly long list of specific, well-delineated exceptions. For instance, a record can be blocked if a provider believes that viewing a note presents a substantial risk of harm to the physical safety of the patient or someone else. The Cures Act also recognizes exemptions that apply to certain caregiving situations, such as when parents attempt to access confidential parts of an adolescent child’s records.

For information regarding exceptions to open notes, please see “What Open Notes Exceptions Does the Cures Act Allow?”
 

Seeing open notes as part of high-touch, high-value care

While many physicians and other providers have anticipated open notes with dread, most outcomes so far have been positive. Patients have reacted well to clarity. They have used open notes as a tool to improve their own understanding of and adherence to care instructions. When patients have noted valid issues or miscommunications, they have appreciated being able to quickly clear them up. More than an administrative burden, open notes present an opportunity to improve documentation, patient-provider relationships, and patient safety. By improving patient adherence to treatment plans, open notes have the potential to improve provider satisfaction, as well.

Chad Anguilm, MBA, is vice president, in-practice technology services, Medical Advantage, part of TDC Group. Richard F. Cahill, JD, is vice president and associate general counsel, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group. Kathleen Stillwell, MPA/HSA, RN, is senior patient safety risk manager, The Doctors Company, part of TDC Group.

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

An overwhelmingly loud and high-pitched screech rattles against your hip. You startle and groan into the pillow as your thoughts settle into conscious awareness. It is 3 a.m. You are a 2nd-year resident trudging through the night shift, alerted to the presence of a new patient awaiting an emergency assessment. You are the only in-house physician. Walking steadfastly toward the emergency unit, you enter and greet the patient. Immediately, you observe a look of surprise followed immediately by a scowl.

You extend a hand, but your greeting is abruptly cut short with: “I want to see a doctor!” You pace your breaths to quell annoyance and resume your introduction, asserting that you are a doctor and indeed the only doctor on duty. After moments of deep sighs and questions regarding your credentials, you persuade the patient to start the interview.

It is now 8 a.m. The frustration of the night starts to ease as you prepare to leave. While gathering your things, a visitor is overheard inquiring the whereabouts of a hospital unit. Volunteering as a guide, you walk the person toward the opposite end of the hospital. Bleary eyed, muscle laxed, and bone weary, you point out the entrance, then turn to leave. The steady rhythm of your steps suddenly halts as you hear from behind: “Thank you! You speak English really well!” Blankly, you stare. Your voice remains mute while your brain screams: “What is that supposed to mean?” But you do not utter a sound, because intuitively, you know the answer.

While reading this scenario, what did you feel? Pride in knowing that the physician was able to successfully navigate a busy night? Relief in the physician’s ability to maintain a professional demeanor despite belittling microaggressions? Are you angry? Would you replay those moments like reruns of a bad TV show? Can you imagine entering your home and collapsing onto the bed as your tears of fury pool over your rumpled sheets?

The emotional release of that morning is seared into my memory. Over the years, I questioned my reactions. Was I too passive? Should I have schooled them on their ignorance? Had I done so, would I have incurred reprimands? Would standing up for myself cause years of hard work to fall away? Moreover, had I defended myself, would I forever have been viewed as “The Angry Black Woman?”

This story is more than a vignette. For me, it is another reminder that, despite how far we have come, we have much further to go. As a Black woman in a professional sphere, I stand upon the shoulders of those who sacrificed for a dream, a greater purpose. My foremothers and forefathers fought bravely and tirelessly so that we could attain levels of success that were only once but a dream. Despite this progress, a grimace, carelessly spoken words, or a mindless gesture remind me that, no matter how much I toil and what levels of success I achieve, when I meet someone for the first time or encounter someone from my past, I find myself wondering whether I am remembered for me or because I am “The Black One.”
 

Honest look at medicine is imperative

It is important to consider multiple facets of the super-doctor myth. We are dedicated, fearless, authoritative, ambitious individuals. We do not yield to sickness, family obligations, or fatigue. Medicine is a calling, and the patient deserves the utmost respect and professional behavior. Impervious to ethnicity, race, nationality, or creed, we are unbiased and always in service of the greater good. Often, however, I wonder how the expectations of patient-focused, patient-centered care can prevail without an honest look at the vicissitudes facing medicine.

We find ourselves amid a tumultuous year overshadowed by a devastating pandemic that skews heavily toward Black and Brown communities, in addition to political turmoil and racial reckoning that sprang forth from fear, anger, and determination ignited by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd – communities united in outrage lamenting the cries of Black Lives Matter.

I remember the tears briskly falling upon my blouse as I watched Mr. Floyd’s life violently ripped from this Earth. Shortly thereafter, I remember the phone calls, emails, and texts from close friends, acquaintances, and colleagues offering support, listening ears, pledging to learn and endeavoring to understand the struggle for recognition and the fight for human rights. Even so, the deafening support was clouded by the preternatural silence of some medical organizations. Within the Black physician community, outrage was palpable. We reflected upon years of sacrifice and perseverance despite the challenge of bigotry, ignorance, and racism – not only from patients and their families – but also colleagues and administrators. Yet, in our time of horror and need, in those moments of vulnerability ... silence. Eventually, lengthy proclamations of support were expressed through various media. However, it felt too safe, too corporate, and too generic and inauthentic. As a result, an exodus of Black physicians from leadership positions and academic medicine took hold as the blatant continuation of rhetoric – coupled with ineffective outreach and support – finally took its toll.

Frequently, I question how the obstacles of medical school, residency, and beyond are expected to be traversed while living in a world that consistently affords additional challenges to those who look, act, or speak in a manner that varies from the perceived standard. In a culture where the myth of the super doctor reigns, how do we reconcile attainment of a false and detrimental narrative while the overarching pressure acutely felt by Black physicians magnifies in the setting of stereotypes, sociopolitical turbulence, bigotry, and racism? How can one sacrifice for an entity that is unwilling to acknowledge the psychological implications of that sacrifice?

Throughout my medical career, I encountered, personally and remotely, various incidents that emphasize the unique struggles facing Black physicians. For instance, while in medical school, I transitioned my hair to its natural state but was counseled against doing so because of the risk of losing residency opportunities as a direct result of my “unprofessional” appearance. Throughout residency, multiple incidents come to mind, including frequent demands to see my hospital badge despite the same not being of asked of my White cohorts; denial of entry into physician entrance within the residency building because, despite my professional attire, I was presumed to be a member of the custodial staff; and patients being confused and asking for a doctor despite my long white coat and clear introductions.

Furthermore, the fluency of my speech and the absence of regional dialect or vernacular are quite often lauded by patients. Inquiries to touch my hair as well as hypotheses regarding my nationality or degree of “blackness” with respect to the shape of my nose, eyes, and lips are openly questioned. Unfortunately, those uncomfortable incidents have not been limited to patient encounters.

In one instance, while presenting a patient in the presence of my attending and a 3rd-year medical student, I was sternly admonished for disclosing the race of the patient. I sat still and resolute as this doctor spoke on increased risk of bias in diagnosis and treatment when race is identified. Outwardly, I projected patience but inside, I seethed. In that moment, I realized that I would never have the luxury of ignorance or denial. Although I desire to be valued for my prowess in medicine, the mythical status was not created with my skin color in mind. For is avoidance not but a reflection of denial?

In these chaotic and uncertain times, how can we continue to promote a pathological ideal when the roads traveled are so fundamentally skewed? If a White physician faces a belligerent and argumentative patient, there is opportunity for debriefing both individually and among a larger cohort via classes, conferences, and supervisions. Conversely, when a Black physician is derided with racist sentiment, will they have the same opportunity for reflection and support? Despite identical expectations of professionalism and growth, how can one be successful in a system that either directly or indirectly encourages the opposite?

As we try to shed the super-doctor myth, we must recognize that this unattainable and detrimental persona hinders progress. This myth undermines our ability to understand our fragility, the limitations of our capabilities, and the strength of our vulnerability. We must take an honest look at the manner in which our individual biases and the deeply ingrained (and potentially unconscious) systemic biases are counterintuitive to the success and support of physicians of color.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, I have received a growing number of inquiries about collection issues. For a variety of reasons, many patients seem increasingly reluctant to pay their medical bills. I’ve written many columns on keeping credit card numbers on file, and other techniques for keeping your accounts receivable in check; but despite your best efforts, there will always be a few deadbeats that you will need to pursue.

For the record, I am not speaking about patients who lost income due to the pandemic and are now struggling with debts, or otherwise have fallen on hard times and are unable to pay. I am addressing the problem of patients who are able to pay, but for whatever reason, do not.

The worst kinds of deadbeats are the ones who rob you twice; they accept payments from insurance companies and keep them. Such crooks must be pursued aggressively, with all the means at your disposal; but to reiterate the point I’ve tried to drive home repeatedly, the best cure is prevention.

You already know that you should collect as many fees as possible at the time of service. For cosmetic procedures you should require a substantial deposit in advance, with the balance due at the time of service. When that is impossible, maximize the chances you will be paid by making sure all available payment mechanisms are in place.

With my credit-card-on-file system that I’ve described many times, patients who fail to pay their credit card bill are the credit card company’s problem, not yours. In cases where you suspect fees might exceed credit card limits, you can arrange a realistic payment schedule in advance and have the patient fill out a credit application. You can find forms for this online at formswift.com, templates.office.com, and many other websites.

In some cases, it may be worth the trouble to run a background check. There are easy and affordable ways to do this. Dunn & Bradstreet, for example, will furnish a report containing payment records and details of any lawsuits, liens, and other legal actions for a nominal fee. The more financial information you have on file, the more leverage you have if a patient later balks at paying his or her balance.

For cosmetic work, always take before and after photos, and have all patients sign a written consent giving permission for the procedure, assuming full financial responsibility, and acknowledging that no guarantees have been given or implied. This defuses the common deadbeat tactics of claiming ignorance of personal financial obligations and professing dissatisfaction with the results.

Despite all your precautions, a deadbeat will inevitably slip through on occasion; but even then, you have options for extracting payment. Collection agencies are the traditional first line of attack for most medical practices. Ideally, your agency should specialize in handling medical accounts, so it will know exactly how much pressure to exert to avoid charges of harassment. Delinquent accounts should be submitted earlier rather than later to maximize the chances of success; my manager never allows an account to age more than 90 days, and if circumstances dictate, she refers them sooner than that.

When collection agencies fail, think about small claims court. You will need to learn the rules in your state, but in most states there is a small filing fee and a limit of $5,000 or so on claims. No attorneys are involved. If your paperwork is in order, the court will nearly always rule in your favor, but it will not provide the means for actual collection. In other words, you will still have to persuade the deadbeat to pay up. However, in many states a court order will give you the authority to attach a lien to property, or garnish wages, which often provides enough leverage to force payment.

What about those double-deadbeats who keep the insurance checks for themselves? First, check your third-party contract; sometimes the insurance company or HMO will be compelled to pay you directly and then go after the patient to get back its money. (They won’t volunteer this service, however – you’ll have to ask for it.)

If that’s not an option, consider reporting the misdirected payment to the Internal Revenue Service as income to the patient, by submitting a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form. Be sure to notify the deadbeat that you will be doing this. Sometimes the threat of such action will convince the individual to pay up; if not, at least you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing he or she will have to pay taxes on the money.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.