User login
Standards for health claims in advertisements need to go up
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Three months is how long I’ll leave a magazine out in my waiting room. When its lobby lifespan is up, I’ll usually recycle it, though sometimes will take it home to read myself when I have down time.
Leafing through an accumulated pile of them over the recent holiday break, I was struck by how many carry ads for questionable “cures”: magnetic bracelets for headaches, copper-based topical creams that claim to cure diabetic neuropathy. Another was from a company with something that looks like a standard tanning bed advertising that it has special lights to “alternatively treat cancer.”
How on Earth is this legal?
Seriously. Since college I’ve been through 4 years of medical school, another 5 combined of residency and fellowship, and now 21 years of frontline neurology experience. And if, after all that, I were to start marketing such horse hockey as a cure for anything (besides my wallet), I’d be hounded by the Food and Drug Administration and state board and probably driven out of practice.
Yet, people with no “real” (science-based) medical treatment experience are free to market this stuff to a public who, for the most part, don’t have the training, knowledge, or experience to know it’s a crock.
I’m sure some of the people selling this stuff really believe they’re helping. Admittedly, there are a lot of things we don’t know in medicine. But anything that’s making such claims should have real evidence – like a large double-blind, placebo-controlled trial – behind it. Not anecdotal reports, small uncontrolled trials, and patient testimonials. The placebo effect is remarkably strong.
There are also some selling this stuff who are less than scrupulous. They’ll claim to have good intentions, but are well aware they’re bilking people – often desperate – out of their savings. They’re no better than the doctors who make headlines for Medicare and insurance fraud by performing unnecessary surgeries and billing for medications that weren’t given.
Either way, the point is the same. Unproven treatments are just that – unproven – and shouldn’t be marketed as effective ones. If it works, let the evidence prove it. But if it doesn’t, no one should be promoting it to anyone, regardless of how long (and where) they went to school.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Why is AOM frequency decreasing in the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era?
In 2000, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 7 (PCV7) was introduced in the United States, and in 2010, PCV13 was introduced. When each of those vaccines were used, they reduced acute otitis media (AOM) incidence caused by the pneumococcal types included in the vaccines. In the time frame of those vaccine introductions, about one-third of AOM cases occurred because of pneumococci and half of those cases occurred because of strains expressing the serotypes in the two formulations of the vaccines. Efficacy is about 70% for AOM prevention for PCVs. The math matches clinical trial results that have shown about an 11%-12% reduction of all AOM attributable to PCVs. However, our group continues to do tympanocentesis to track the etiology of AOM, and we have reported that elimination of strains of pneumococci expressing capsular types included in the PCVs has been followed by emergence of replacement strains of pneumococci that express non-PCV capsules. We also have shown that Haemophilus influenzae has increased proportionally as a cause of AOM and is the most frequent cause of recurrent AOM. So what else is going on?
My colleague, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, – another ID Consult columnist – is a coauthor of a paper along with Ron Dagan, MD; Lauren Bakaletz, PhD; and Robert Cohen, MD, (all major figures in pneumococcal disease or AOM) that was published in Lancet Infectious Diseases (Dagan R et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Apr;16[4]:480-92.). They gathered evidence suggesting that prevention of early AOM episodes caused by pneumococci expressing PCV serotypes resulted in a reduction of subsequent complex cases caused by nonvaccine serotypes and other otopathogens. Thus, PCVs may have an impact on AOM indirectly attributable to vaccination.
However, the American Academy of Pediatrics made several recommendations in the 2004 and 2013 guidelines for diagnosis and management of AOM that had a remarkable impact in reducing the frequency that this infection is diagnosed and treated as well. The recommendations included:
- Stricter diagnostic criteria in 2004 that became more strict in 2013 requiring bulging of the eardrum.
- Introduction of “watchful waiting” as an option in management that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Introduction of delayed prescription of antibiotic when diagnosis was uncertain that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Endorsement of specific antibiotics with the greatest anticipated efficacy taking into consideration spectrum of activity, safety, and costs.
In the same general time frame, a second development occurred: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a national campaign to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate antibiotic use in an effort to reduce rising antibiotic resistance among bacteria. The public media and professional communication campaign emphasized that antibiotic treatment carried with it risks that should be considered by patients and clinicians.
Because of the AAP and CDC recommendations, clinicians diagnosed AOM less frequently, and they treated it less frequently. Parents of children took note of the fact that their children with viral upper respiratory infections suspected to have AOM were diagnosed with AOM less often; even when a diagnosis was made, an antibiotic was prescribed less often. Therefore, parents brought their children to clinicians less often when their child had a viral upper respiratory infections or when they suspected AOM.
In addition, guidelines endorsed specific antibiotics that had better efficacy in treatment of AOM. Therefore, when clinicians did treat the infection with antibiotics, they used more effective drugs resulting in fewer treatment failures. This gives the impression of less-frequent AOM as well.
Both universal PCV use and universal influenza vaccine use have been endorsed in recent years, and uptake of that recommendation has increased over time. Clinical trials have shown that influenza is a common virus associated with secondary bacterial AOM.
Lastly, returning to antibiotic use, we now increasingly appreciate the adverse effect on the natural microbiome of the nasopharynx and gut when antibiotics are given. Natural resistance provided by commensals is disrupted when antibiotics are given. This may allow otopathogens to colonize the nasopharynx more readily, an effect that may last for months after a single antibiotic course. We also appreciate more that the microbiome modulates our immune system favorably, so antibiotics that disrupt the microbiome may have an adverse effect on innate or adaptive immunity as well. These adverse consequences of antibiotic use on microbiome and immunity are reduced when less antibiotics are given to children, as has been occurring over the past 2 decades.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he had no relevent financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In 2000, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 7 (PCV7) was introduced in the United States, and in 2010, PCV13 was introduced. When each of those vaccines were used, they reduced acute otitis media (AOM) incidence caused by the pneumococcal types included in the vaccines. In the time frame of those vaccine introductions, about one-third of AOM cases occurred because of pneumococci and half of those cases occurred because of strains expressing the serotypes in the two formulations of the vaccines. Efficacy is about 70% for AOM prevention for PCVs. The math matches clinical trial results that have shown about an 11%-12% reduction of all AOM attributable to PCVs. However, our group continues to do tympanocentesis to track the etiology of AOM, and we have reported that elimination of strains of pneumococci expressing capsular types included in the PCVs has been followed by emergence of replacement strains of pneumococci that express non-PCV capsules. We also have shown that Haemophilus influenzae has increased proportionally as a cause of AOM and is the most frequent cause of recurrent AOM. So what else is going on?
My colleague, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, – another ID Consult columnist – is a coauthor of a paper along with Ron Dagan, MD; Lauren Bakaletz, PhD; and Robert Cohen, MD, (all major figures in pneumococcal disease or AOM) that was published in Lancet Infectious Diseases (Dagan R et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Apr;16[4]:480-92.). They gathered evidence suggesting that prevention of early AOM episodes caused by pneumococci expressing PCV serotypes resulted in a reduction of subsequent complex cases caused by nonvaccine serotypes and other otopathogens. Thus, PCVs may have an impact on AOM indirectly attributable to vaccination.
However, the American Academy of Pediatrics made several recommendations in the 2004 and 2013 guidelines for diagnosis and management of AOM that had a remarkable impact in reducing the frequency that this infection is diagnosed and treated as well. The recommendations included:
- Stricter diagnostic criteria in 2004 that became more strict in 2013 requiring bulging of the eardrum.
- Introduction of “watchful waiting” as an option in management that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Introduction of delayed prescription of antibiotic when diagnosis was uncertain that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Endorsement of specific antibiotics with the greatest anticipated efficacy taking into consideration spectrum of activity, safety, and costs.
In the same general time frame, a second development occurred: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a national campaign to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate antibiotic use in an effort to reduce rising antibiotic resistance among bacteria. The public media and professional communication campaign emphasized that antibiotic treatment carried with it risks that should be considered by patients and clinicians.
Because of the AAP and CDC recommendations, clinicians diagnosed AOM less frequently, and they treated it less frequently. Parents of children took note of the fact that their children with viral upper respiratory infections suspected to have AOM were diagnosed with AOM less often; even when a diagnosis was made, an antibiotic was prescribed less often. Therefore, parents brought their children to clinicians less often when their child had a viral upper respiratory infections or when they suspected AOM.
In addition, guidelines endorsed specific antibiotics that had better efficacy in treatment of AOM. Therefore, when clinicians did treat the infection with antibiotics, they used more effective drugs resulting in fewer treatment failures. This gives the impression of less-frequent AOM as well.
Both universal PCV use and universal influenza vaccine use have been endorsed in recent years, and uptake of that recommendation has increased over time. Clinical trials have shown that influenza is a common virus associated with secondary bacterial AOM.
Lastly, returning to antibiotic use, we now increasingly appreciate the adverse effect on the natural microbiome of the nasopharynx and gut when antibiotics are given. Natural resistance provided by commensals is disrupted when antibiotics are given. This may allow otopathogens to colonize the nasopharynx more readily, an effect that may last for months after a single antibiotic course. We also appreciate more that the microbiome modulates our immune system favorably, so antibiotics that disrupt the microbiome may have an adverse effect on innate or adaptive immunity as well. These adverse consequences of antibiotic use on microbiome and immunity are reduced when less antibiotics are given to children, as has been occurring over the past 2 decades.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he had no relevent financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In 2000, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine 7 (PCV7) was introduced in the United States, and in 2010, PCV13 was introduced. When each of those vaccines were used, they reduced acute otitis media (AOM) incidence caused by the pneumococcal types included in the vaccines. In the time frame of those vaccine introductions, about one-third of AOM cases occurred because of pneumococci and half of those cases occurred because of strains expressing the serotypes in the two formulations of the vaccines. Efficacy is about 70% for AOM prevention for PCVs. The math matches clinical trial results that have shown about an 11%-12% reduction of all AOM attributable to PCVs. However, our group continues to do tympanocentesis to track the etiology of AOM, and we have reported that elimination of strains of pneumococci expressing capsular types included in the PCVs has been followed by emergence of replacement strains of pneumococci that express non-PCV capsules. We also have shown that Haemophilus influenzae has increased proportionally as a cause of AOM and is the most frequent cause of recurrent AOM. So what else is going on?
My colleague, Stephen I. Pelton, MD, – another ID Consult columnist – is a coauthor of a paper along with Ron Dagan, MD; Lauren Bakaletz, PhD; and Robert Cohen, MD, (all major figures in pneumococcal disease or AOM) that was published in Lancet Infectious Diseases (Dagan R et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Apr;16[4]:480-92.). They gathered evidence suggesting that prevention of early AOM episodes caused by pneumococci expressing PCV serotypes resulted in a reduction of subsequent complex cases caused by nonvaccine serotypes and other otopathogens. Thus, PCVs may have an impact on AOM indirectly attributable to vaccination.
However, the American Academy of Pediatrics made several recommendations in the 2004 and 2013 guidelines for diagnosis and management of AOM that had a remarkable impact in reducing the frequency that this infection is diagnosed and treated as well. The recommendations included:
- Stricter diagnostic criteria in 2004 that became more strict in 2013 requiring bulging of the eardrum.
- Introduction of “watchful waiting” as an option in management that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Introduction of delayed prescription of antibiotic when diagnosis was uncertain that possibly led to no antibiotic treatment.
- Endorsement of specific antibiotics with the greatest anticipated efficacy taking into consideration spectrum of activity, safety, and costs.
In the same general time frame, a second development occurred: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched a national campaign to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate antibiotic use in an effort to reduce rising antibiotic resistance among bacteria. The public media and professional communication campaign emphasized that antibiotic treatment carried with it risks that should be considered by patients and clinicians.
Because of the AAP and CDC recommendations, clinicians diagnosed AOM less frequently, and they treated it less frequently. Parents of children took note of the fact that their children with viral upper respiratory infections suspected to have AOM were diagnosed with AOM less often; even when a diagnosis was made, an antibiotic was prescribed less often. Therefore, parents brought their children to clinicians less often when their child had a viral upper respiratory infections or when they suspected AOM.
In addition, guidelines endorsed specific antibiotics that had better efficacy in treatment of AOM. Therefore, when clinicians did treat the infection with antibiotics, they used more effective drugs resulting in fewer treatment failures. This gives the impression of less-frequent AOM as well.
Both universal PCV use and universal influenza vaccine use have been endorsed in recent years, and uptake of that recommendation has increased over time. Clinical trials have shown that influenza is a common virus associated with secondary bacterial AOM.
Lastly, returning to antibiotic use, we now increasingly appreciate the adverse effect on the natural microbiome of the nasopharynx and gut when antibiotics are given. Natural resistance provided by commensals is disrupted when antibiotics are given. This may allow otopathogens to colonize the nasopharynx more readily, an effect that may last for months after a single antibiotic course. We also appreciate more that the microbiome modulates our immune system favorably, so antibiotics that disrupt the microbiome may have an adverse effect on innate or adaptive immunity as well. These adverse consequences of antibiotic use on microbiome and immunity are reduced when less antibiotics are given to children, as has been occurring over the past 2 decades.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he had no relevent financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Letter to the Editor
Editor’s note: This is one of the many emails readers sent to Dermatology News in response to Dr. Alan Rockoff’s last “Under My Skin” column in the December issue.
Dr. Rockoff,
I was deeply heartbroken to read that this would be your last column in Dermatology News today. I am a medical dermatologist with 19 years of experience in a small town in North Carolina and have always looked forward to reading your columns. No matter what the topic for the article you chose, I would always glean something worthwhile from it, be it a poignant insight, a relevant practice tip on treatment or patient management, and nearly always a hearty laugh.
Being somewhat rural and without a lot of competition, my very busy practice consists mainly of salt of the earth patients needing straight dermatologic care, mostly skin cancer, psoriasis, acne, the general stuff. Your ability to capture the essence of what it is like to be one of us in the trenches, to expose and eloquently define the most common and frustrating issues we face, has been a source of pleasure for years. On more than one occasion, I put down the magazine and attempted to write a thank you letter for one article or another you wrote, to say that you are doing a great job and please continue to enlighten us with your insight and that your efforts are greatly valued. I am embarrassed to admit, I never could complete those emails, thinking “Why bother the man? He is clearly as busy as me, and why would he want to hear from me anyway?”
Well, at the risk of bothering you, sir, please do accept my apologies for not writing you before you retired your article, and please know that your articles have personally given me years of immense happiness. They will be sorely missed, and likely not ever replaced.
With gratitude,
Jeff Suchniak, MD
Rocky Mount, N.C.
Editor’s note: This is one of the many emails readers sent to Dermatology News in response to Dr. Alan Rockoff’s last “Under My Skin” column in the December issue.
Dr. Rockoff,
I was deeply heartbroken to read that this would be your last column in Dermatology News today. I am a medical dermatologist with 19 years of experience in a small town in North Carolina and have always looked forward to reading your columns. No matter what the topic for the article you chose, I would always glean something worthwhile from it, be it a poignant insight, a relevant practice tip on treatment or patient management, and nearly always a hearty laugh.
Being somewhat rural and without a lot of competition, my very busy practice consists mainly of salt of the earth patients needing straight dermatologic care, mostly skin cancer, psoriasis, acne, the general stuff. Your ability to capture the essence of what it is like to be one of us in the trenches, to expose and eloquently define the most common and frustrating issues we face, has been a source of pleasure for years. On more than one occasion, I put down the magazine and attempted to write a thank you letter for one article or another you wrote, to say that you are doing a great job and please continue to enlighten us with your insight and that your efforts are greatly valued. I am embarrassed to admit, I never could complete those emails, thinking “Why bother the man? He is clearly as busy as me, and why would he want to hear from me anyway?”
Well, at the risk of bothering you, sir, please do accept my apologies for not writing you before you retired your article, and please know that your articles have personally given me years of immense happiness. They will be sorely missed, and likely not ever replaced.
With gratitude,
Jeff Suchniak, MD
Rocky Mount, N.C.
Editor’s note: This is one of the many emails readers sent to Dermatology News in response to Dr. Alan Rockoff’s last “Under My Skin” column in the December issue.
Dr. Rockoff,
I was deeply heartbroken to read that this would be your last column in Dermatology News today. I am a medical dermatologist with 19 years of experience in a small town in North Carolina and have always looked forward to reading your columns. No matter what the topic for the article you chose, I would always glean something worthwhile from it, be it a poignant insight, a relevant practice tip on treatment or patient management, and nearly always a hearty laugh.
Being somewhat rural and without a lot of competition, my very busy practice consists mainly of salt of the earth patients needing straight dermatologic care, mostly skin cancer, psoriasis, acne, the general stuff. Your ability to capture the essence of what it is like to be one of us in the trenches, to expose and eloquently define the most common and frustrating issues we face, has been a source of pleasure for years. On more than one occasion, I put down the magazine and attempted to write a thank you letter for one article or another you wrote, to say that you are doing a great job and please continue to enlighten us with your insight and that your efforts are greatly valued. I am embarrassed to admit, I never could complete those emails, thinking “Why bother the man? He is clearly as busy as me, and why would he want to hear from me anyway?”
Well, at the risk of bothering you, sir, please do accept my apologies for not writing you before you retired your article, and please know that your articles have personally given me years of immense happiness. They will be sorely missed, and likely not ever replaced.
With gratitude,
Jeff Suchniak, MD
Rocky Mount, N.C.
Provide appropriate sexual, reproductive health care for transgender patients
I recently was on a panel of experts discussing how to prevent HIV among transgender youth. Preventing HIV among transgender youth, especially transgender youth of color, remains a challenge for multiple reasons – racism, poverty, stigma, marginalization, and discrimination play a role in the HIV epidemic. A barrier to preventing HIV infections among transgender youth is a lack of knowledge on how to provide them with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care. Here are some tips and resources that can help you ensure that transgender youth are safe and healthy.
One of the challenges of obtaining a sexual history is asking the right questions For example, if you have a transgender male assigned female at birth, ask whether their partners produce sperm instead of asking about the sex of their partners. A transgender male’s partner may identify as female but is assigned male at birth and uses her penis during sex. Furthermore, a transgender male may be on testosterone, but he still can get pregnant. Asking how they use their organs is just as important. A transgender male who has condomless penile-vaginal sex with multiple partners is at a higher risk for HIV infection than is a transgender male who shares sex toys with his only partner.
Normalizing that you ask a comprehensive sexual history to all your patients regardless of gender identity may put the patient at ease. Many transgender people are reluctant to disclose their gender identity to their provider because they are afraid that the provider may fixate on their sexuality once they do. Stating that you ask sexual health questions to all your patients may prevent the transgender patient from feeling singled out.
Finally, you don’t have to ask a sexual history with every transgender patient, just as you wouldn’t for your cisgender patients. If a patient is complaining of a sprained ankle, a sexual history may not be helpful, compared with obtaining one when a patient comes in with pelvic pain. Many transgender patients avoid care because they are frequently asked about their sexual history or gender identity when these are not relevant to their chief complaint.
Here are some helpful questions to ask when taking a sexual history, according to the University of California, San Francisco, Transgender Care & Treatment Guidelines.1
- Are you having sex? How many sex partners have you had in the past year?
- Who are you having sex with? What types of sex are you having? What parts of your anatomy do you use for sex?
- How do you protect yourself from STIs?
- What STIs have you had in the past, if any? When were you last tested for STIs?
- Has your partner(s) ever been diagnosed with any STIs?
- Do you use alcohol or any drugs when you have sex?
- Do you exchange sex for money, drugs, or a place to stay?
Also, use a trauma-informed approach when working with transgender patients. Many have been victims of sexual trauma. Always have a chaperone accompany you during the exam, explain to the patient what you plan to do and why it is necessary, and allow them to decline (and document their declining the physical exam). Also consider having your patient self-swab for STI screening if appropriate.1
Like obtaining a sexual history, routine screenings for certain types of cancers will be based on the organs the patient has. For example, a transgender woman assigned male at birth will not need a cervical cancer screening, but a transgender man assigned female at birth may need one – if the patient still has a cervix. Cervical cancer screening guidelines are similar for transgender men as it is for nontransgender women, and one should use the same guidelines endorsed by the American Cancer Society, American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the World Health Organization.2-4
Cervical screenings should never be a requirement for testosterone therapy, and no transgender male under the age of 21 years will need cervical screening. The University of California guidelines offers tips on how to make transgender men more comfortable during cervical cancer screening.5
Contraception and menstrual management also are important for transgender patients. Testosterone can induce amenorrhea for transgender men, but it is not good birth control. If a transgender male patient has sex with partners that produce sperm, then the physician should discuss effective birth control options. There is no ideal birth control option for transgender men. One must consider multiple factors including the patient’s desire for pregnancy, desire to cease periods, ease of administration, and risk for thrombosis.
Most transgender men may balk at the idea of taking estrogen-containing contraception, but it is more effective than oral progestin-only pills. Intrauterine devices are highly effective in pregnancy prevention and can achieve amenorrhea in 50% of users within 1 year,but some transmen may become dysphoric with the procedure. 6 The etonogestrel implants also are highly effective birth control, but irregular periods are common, leading to discontinuation. Depot medroxyprogesterone is highly effective in preventing pregnancy and can induce amenorrhea in 70% of users within 1 year and 80% of users in 2 years, but also is associated with weight gain in one-third of users.7 Finally, pubertal blockers can rapidly stop periods for transmen who are severely dysphoric from their menses; however, before achieving amenorrhea, a flare bleed can occur 4-6 weeks after administration.8 Support from a mental health therapist during this time is critical. Pubertal blockers, nevertheless, are not suitable birth control.
When providing affirming sexual and reproductive health care for transgender patients, key principles include focusing on organs and activities over identity. Additionally, screening for certain types of cancers also is dependent on organs. Finally, do not neglect the importance of contraception among transgender men. Taking these principles in consideration will help you provide excellent care for transgender youth.
Dr. Montano is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and an adolescent medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Transgender people and sexually transmitted infections (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/stis).
2. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62(3):147-72.
3. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-91.
4. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Report of a WHO consultation. 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva.
5. Screening for cervical cancer for transgender men (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/cervical-cancer).
6. Contraception. 2002 Feb;65(2):129-32.
7. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2011 Jun;12(2):93-106.
8. Int J Womens Health. 2014 Jun 23;6:631-7.
Resources
Breast cancer screening in transgender men. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-men).
Screening for breast cancer in transgender women. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-women).
Transgender health and HIV (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/hiv).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV and Transgender People (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html).
I recently was on a panel of experts discussing how to prevent HIV among transgender youth. Preventing HIV among transgender youth, especially transgender youth of color, remains a challenge for multiple reasons – racism, poverty, stigma, marginalization, and discrimination play a role in the HIV epidemic. A barrier to preventing HIV infections among transgender youth is a lack of knowledge on how to provide them with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care. Here are some tips and resources that can help you ensure that transgender youth are safe and healthy.
One of the challenges of obtaining a sexual history is asking the right questions For example, if you have a transgender male assigned female at birth, ask whether their partners produce sperm instead of asking about the sex of their partners. A transgender male’s partner may identify as female but is assigned male at birth and uses her penis during sex. Furthermore, a transgender male may be on testosterone, but he still can get pregnant. Asking how they use their organs is just as important. A transgender male who has condomless penile-vaginal sex with multiple partners is at a higher risk for HIV infection than is a transgender male who shares sex toys with his only partner.
Normalizing that you ask a comprehensive sexual history to all your patients regardless of gender identity may put the patient at ease. Many transgender people are reluctant to disclose their gender identity to their provider because they are afraid that the provider may fixate on their sexuality once they do. Stating that you ask sexual health questions to all your patients may prevent the transgender patient from feeling singled out.
Finally, you don’t have to ask a sexual history with every transgender patient, just as you wouldn’t for your cisgender patients. If a patient is complaining of a sprained ankle, a sexual history may not be helpful, compared with obtaining one when a patient comes in with pelvic pain. Many transgender patients avoid care because they are frequently asked about their sexual history or gender identity when these are not relevant to their chief complaint.
Here are some helpful questions to ask when taking a sexual history, according to the University of California, San Francisco, Transgender Care & Treatment Guidelines.1
- Are you having sex? How many sex partners have you had in the past year?
- Who are you having sex with? What types of sex are you having? What parts of your anatomy do you use for sex?
- How do you protect yourself from STIs?
- What STIs have you had in the past, if any? When were you last tested for STIs?
- Has your partner(s) ever been diagnosed with any STIs?
- Do you use alcohol or any drugs when you have sex?
- Do you exchange sex for money, drugs, or a place to stay?
Also, use a trauma-informed approach when working with transgender patients. Many have been victims of sexual trauma. Always have a chaperone accompany you during the exam, explain to the patient what you plan to do and why it is necessary, and allow them to decline (and document their declining the physical exam). Also consider having your patient self-swab for STI screening if appropriate.1
Like obtaining a sexual history, routine screenings for certain types of cancers will be based on the organs the patient has. For example, a transgender woman assigned male at birth will not need a cervical cancer screening, but a transgender man assigned female at birth may need one – if the patient still has a cervix. Cervical cancer screening guidelines are similar for transgender men as it is for nontransgender women, and one should use the same guidelines endorsed by the American Cancer Society, American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the World Health Organization.2-4
Cervical screenings should never be a requirement for testosterone therapy, and no transgender male under the age of 21 years will need cervical screening. The University of California guidelines offers tips on how to make transgender men more comfortable during cervical cancer screening.5
Contraception and menstrual management also are important for transgender patients. Testosterone can induce amenorrhea for transgender men, but it is not good birth control. If a transgender male patient has sex with partners that produce sperm, then the physician should discuss effective birth control options. There is no ideal birth control option for transgender men. One must consider multiple factors including the patient’s desire for pregnancy, desire to cease periods, ease of administration, and risk for thrombosis.
Most transgender men may balk at the idea of taking estrogen-containing contraception, but it is more effective than oral progestin-only pills. Intrauterine devices are highly effective in pregnancy prevention and can achieve amenorrhea in 50% of users within 1 year,but some transmen may become dysphoric with the procedure. 6 The etonogestrel implants also are highly effective birth control, but irregular periods are common, leading to discontinuation. Depot medroxyprogesterone is highly effective in preventing pregnancy and can induce amenorrhea in 70% of users within 1 year and 80% of users in 2 years, but also is associated with weight gain in one-third of users.7 Finally, pubertal blockers can rapidly stop periods for transmen who are severely dysphoric from their menses; however, before achieving amenorrhea, a flare bleed can occur 4-6 weeks after administration.8 Support from a mental health therapist during this time is critical. Pubertal blockers, nevertheless, are not suitable birth control.
When providing affirming sexual and reproductive health care for transgender patients, key principles include focusing on organs and activities over identity. Additionally, screening for certain types of cancers also is dependent on organs. Finally, do not neglect the importance of contraception among transgender men. Taking these principles in consideration will help you provide excellent care for transgender youth.
Dr. Montano is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and an adolescent medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Transgender people and sexually transmitted infections (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/stis).
2. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62(3):147-72.
3. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-91.
4. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Report of a WHO consultation. 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva.
5. Screening for cervical cancer for transgender men (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/cervical-cancer).
6. Contraception. 2002 Feb;65(2):129-32.
7. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2011 Jun;12(2):93-106.
8. Int J Womens Health. 2014 Jun 23;6:631-7.
Resources
Breast cancer screening in transgender men. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-men).
Screening for breast cancer in transgender women. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-women).
Transgender health and HIV (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/hiv).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV and Transgender People (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html).
I recently was on a panel of experts discussing how to prevent HIV among transgender youth. Preventing HIV among transgender youth, especially transgender youth of color, remains a challenge for multiple reasons – racism, poverty, stigma, marginalization, and discrimination play a role in the HIV epidemic. A barrier to preventing HIV infections among transgender youth is a lack of knowledge on how to provide them with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care. Here are some tips and resources that can help you ensure that transgender youth are safe and healthy.
One of the challenges of obtaining a sexual history is asking the right questions For example, if you have a transgender male assigned female at birth, ask whether their partners produce sperm instead of asking about the sex of their partners. A transgender male’s partner may identify as female but is assigned male at birth and uses her penis during sex. Furthermore, a transgender male may be on testosterone, but he still can get pregnant. Asking how they use their organs is just as important. A transgender male who has condomless penile-vaginal sex with multiple partners is at a higher risk for HIV infection than is a transgender male who shares sex toys with his only partner.
Normalizing that you ask a comprehensive sexual history to all your patients regardless of gender identity may put the patient at ease. Many transgender people are reluctant to disclose their gender identity to their provider because they are afraid that the provider may fixate on their sexuality once they do. Stating that you ask sexual health questions to all your patients may prevent the transgender patient from feeling singled out.
Finally, you don’t have to ask a sexual history with every transgender patient, just as you wouldn’t for your cisgender patients. If a patient is complaining of a sprained ankle, a sexual history may not be helpful, compared with obtaining one when a patient comes in with pelvic pain. Many transgender patients avoid care because they are frequently asked about their sexual history or gender identity when these are not relevant to their chief complaint.
Here are some helpful questions to ask when taking a sexual history, according to the University of California, San Francisco, Transgender Care & Treatment Guidelines.1
- Are you having sex? How many sex partners have you had in the past year?
- Who are you having sex with? What types of sex are you having? What parts of your anatomy do you use for sex?
- How do you protect yourself from STIs?
- What STIs have you had in the past, if any? When were you last tested for STIs?
- Has your partner(s) ever been diagnosed with any STIs?
- Do you use alcohol or any drugs when you have sex?
- Do you exchange sex for money, drugs, or a place to stay?
Also, use a trauma-informed approach when working with transgender patients. Many have been victims of sexual trauma. Always have a chaperone accompany you during the exam, explain to the patient what you plan to do and why it is necessary, and allow them to decline (and document their declining the physical exam). Also consider having your patient self-swab for STI screening if appropriate.1
Like obtaining a sexual history, routine screenings for certain types of cancers will be based on the organs the patient has. For example, a transgender woman assigned male at birth will not need a cervical cancer screening, but a transgender man assigned female at birth may need one – if the patient still has a cervix. Cervical cancer screening guidelines are similar for transgender men as it is for nontransgender women, and one should use the same guidelines endorsed by the American Cancer Society, American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the World Health Organization.2-4
Cervical screenings should never be a requirement for testosterone therapy, and no transgender male under the age of 21 years will need cervical screening. The University of California guidelines offers tips on how to make transgender men more comfortable during cervical cancer screening.5
Contraception and menstrual management also are important for transgender patients. Testosterone can induce amenorrhea for transgender men, but it is not good birth control. If a transgender male patient has sex with partners that produce sperm, then the physician should discuss effective birth control options. There is no ideal birth control option for transgender men. One must consider multiple factors including the patient’s desire for pregnancy, desire to cease periods, ease of administration, and risk for thrombosis.
Most transgender men may balk at the idea of taking estrogen-containing contraception, but it is more effective than oral progestin-only pills. Intrauterine devices are highly effective in pregnancy prevention and can achieve amenorrhea in 50% of users within 1 year,but some transmen may become dysphoric with the procedure. 6 The etonogestrel implants also are highly effective birth control, but irregular periods are common, leading to discontinuation. Depot medroxyprogesterone is highly effective in preventing pregnancy and can induce amenorrhea in 70% of users within 1 year and 80% of users in 2 years, but also is associated with weight gain in one-third of users.7 Finally, pubertal blockers can rapidly stop periods for transmen who are severely dysphoric from their menses; however, before achieving amenorrhea, a flare bleed can occur 4-6 weeks after administration.8 Support from a mental health therapist during this time is critical. Pubertal blockers, nevertheless, are not suitable birth control.
When providing affirming sexual and reproductive health care for transgender patients, key principles include focusing on organs and activities over identity. Additionally, screening for certain types of cancers also is dependent on organs. Finally, do not neglect the importance of contraception among transgender men. Taking these principles in consideration will help you provide excellent care for transgender youth.
Dr. Montano is an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and an adolescent medicine physician at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Transgender people and sexually transmitted infections (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/stis).
2. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62(3):147-72.
3. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-91.
4. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Report of a WHO consultation. 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva.
5. Screening for cervical cancer for transgender men (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/cervical-cancer).
6. Contraception. 2002 Feb;65(2):129-32.
7. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2011 Jun;12(2):93-106.
8. Int J Womens Health. 2014 Jun 23;6:631-7.
Resources
Breast cancer screening in transgender men. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-men).
Screening for breast cancer in transgender women. (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/breast-cancer-women).
Transgender health and HIV (https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/hiv).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV and Transgender People (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html).
Armed conflict disproportionately affects children
I was asked recently about the trauma of 9/11 by a teen patient who was too young to remember the terrorist attacks. I was surprised that even today I become teary eyed thinking about it. My son was in his first week of college at Georgetown, and in the early confusion about what was going on I was panicked at reports of bombings in Washington. Fortunately, for me and my family at least, none of us were physically harmed. But the mental trauma still is with us. It was a momentary panic for me, but it’s not so fleeting for many families around the world today.
I can’t imagine what it is like today to be a parent in an armed conflict zone, or even in an area with very high levels of criminal violence. At a meeting of the International Society for Social Pediatrics (ISSOP), I learned that an estimated 1.5 billion residents of Earth, or about one in five inhabitants, lived in war zones or in areas of tremendous violence, according to the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report. And I learned that children are disproportionately affected – physically, mentally, and developmentally – from Stella Tsitoura, MD, of the Network for Children’s Rights, Athens, and others at the ISSOP meeting in Beirut, Lebanon, where pediatricians from around the world gathered in Oct. 2019 to consider what we as a profession should be doing in the context of armed conflict’s impact on so many children. The meeting was held in the Middle East because it is an especially hot conflict area, but children in South Asia, central Africa, South America, Central America, even rough inner-city areas in the United States are also affected.
Child soldiers in some parts of the world particularly are affected, sometimes being forced to commit violence on neighbors and kin. One country that I worked in years ago, Yemen, is a horrifying example of the complex impact of war on children and families. In 2017, over 2,100 children had been recruited as soldiers during the 3-year conflict in Yemen, a UNICEF representative reported. The death toll in Yemen was over 17,500 by Nov. 2018, according to a Human Rights Watch report.
Samuel Perlo-Freeman, PhD, an expert on the economics of arms trade, noted at the ISSOP meeting that two-thirds of civilian casualties in Yemen are caused by Coalition air strikes, whose members include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates. He also said rebel groups in Yemen and elsewhere acquire their arms by capture, by smuggling, or through the aid of foreign backers. Six countries – the United States, Russia, and several western European countries – account for the majority of war tools used in armed conflict zones. In June 2019, courts in Great Britain ruled that British arms sales to the parties involved in Yemen were illegal without an assessment as to whether any violation of internal humanitarian law had taken place.
Many of us feel impotent when facing the magnitude of this problem, and the lives of despair that affected children lead are sometimes too heart breaking to dwell on. ISSOP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the International Pediatric Association (IPA) are teaching us differently: Standing up for the human rights of children living in areas of conflict or refugees from those areas is our responsibility, both as individuals and as members of our pediatric associations. At a basic level we need to witness – we need to share what we see with our patients who have immigrated legally or illegally in our practices, our hospitals, and our communities. It’s important to be knowledgeable of current standards of clinical care outlined by both ISSOP and the AAP to ensure our patients affected by conflict and violence get appropriate treatment.
Some of the most lasting health impacts for children in conflict are their mental health needs; the World Health Organization prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings is 22%, according to a 2019 report in the Lancet (2019 Jun;394[10194]:240-8). Not only do mental health conditions last throughout a lifetime, the impact of war can affect generations through epigenetic forces.
Arms manufacturers should be held accountable as the courts are doing in Great Britain. Too often American-made armaments are falling into the wrong hands. More can be done to limit the sale of weapons that go into conflict zones. Chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and biologic weapons are banned by international agreement; shouldn’t we do the same with nuclear weapons?
Some pediatric health care facilities are impacted by the needs of traumatized children more than others. Countries at the front line of conflict – like Lebanon, Jordon, Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Mexico – should be supported in their efforts on behalf of child refugees. We need to share the burden and support entities such as Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, and the Red Cross/Crescent as they present themselves in crisis zones. We recognize that the fundamental human rights of children are being ignored by warring parties. especially Goal 16, which asks the world community to make real progress in promoting peace and justice by 2030. Pediatricians may not be experts in armed conflict, but we are experts in what warfare does to the health and well-being of young children. It’s time to speak out and act.
I was asked recently about the trauma of 9/11 by a teen patient who was too young to remember the terrorist attacks. I was surprised that even today I become teary eyed thinking about it. My son was in his first week of college at Georgetown, and in the early confusion about what was going on I was panicked at reports of bombings in Washington. Fortunately, for me and my family at least, none of us were physically harmed. But the mental trauma still is with us. It was a momentary panic for me, but it’s not so fleeting for many families around the world today.
I can’t imagine what it is like today to be a parent in an armed conflict zone, or even in an area with very high levels of criminal violence. At a meeting of the International Society for Social Pediatrics (ISSOP), I learned that an estimated 1.5 billion residents of Earth, or about one in five inhabitants, lived in war zones or in areas of tremendous violence, according to the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report. And I learned that children are disproportionately affected – physically, mentally, and developmentally – from Stella Tsitoura, MD, of the Network for Children’s Rights, Athens, and others at the ISSOP meeting in Beirut, Lebanon, where pediatricians from around the world gathered in Oct. 2019 to consider what we as a profession should be doing in the context of armed conflict’s impact on so many children. The meeting was held in the Middle East because it is an especially hot conflict area, but children in South Asia, central Africa, South America, Central America, even rough inner-city areas in the United States are also affected.
Child soldiers in some parts of the world particularly are affected, sometimes being forced to commit violence on neighbors and kin. One country that I worked in years ago, Yemen, is a horrifying example of the complex impact of war on children and families. In 2017, over 2,100 children had been recruited as soldiers during the 3-year conflict in Yemen, a UNICEF representative reported. The death toll in Yemen was over 17,500 by Nov. 2018, according to a Human Rights Watch report.
Samuel Perlo-Freeman, PhD, an expert on the economics of arms trade, noted at the ISSOP meeting that two-thirds of civilian casualties in Yemen are caused by Coalition air strikes, whose members include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates. He also said rebel groups in Yemen and elsewhere acquire their arms by capture, by smuggling, or through the aid of foreign backers. Six countries – the United States, Russia, and several western European countries – account for the majority of war tools used in armed conflict zones. In June 2019, courts in Great Britain ruled that British arms sales to the parties involved in Yemen were illegal without an assessment as to whether any violation of internal humanitarian law had taken place.
Many of us feel impotent when facing the magnitude of this problem, and the lives of despair that affected children lead are sometimes too heart breaking to dwell on. ISSOP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the International Pediatric Association (IPA) are teaching us differently: Standing up for the human rights of children living in areas of conflict or refugees from those areas is our responsibility, both as individuals and as members of our pediatric associations. At a basic level we need to witness – we need to share what we see with our patients who have immigrated legally or illegally in our practices, our hospitals, and our communities. It’s important to be knowledgeable of current standards of clinical care outlined by both ISSOP and the AAP to ensure our patients affected by conflict and violence get appropriate treatment.
Some of the most lasting health impacts for children in conflict are their mental health needs; the World Health Organization prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings is 22%, according to a 2019 report in the Lancet (2019 Jun;394[10194]:240-8). Not only do mental health conditions last throughout a lifetime, the impact of war can affect generations through epigenetic forces.
Arms manufacturers should be held accountable as the courts are doing in Great Britain. Too often American-made armaments are falling into the wrong hands. More can be done to limit the sale of weapons that go into conflict zones. Chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and biologic weapons are banned by international agreement; shouldn’t we do the same with nuclear weapons?
Some pediatric health care facilities are impacted by the needs of traumatized children more than others. Countries at the front line of conflict – like Lebanon, Jordon, Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Mexico – should be supported in their efforts on behalf of child refugees. We need to share the burden and support entities such as Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, and the Red Cross/Crescent as they present themselves in crisis zones. We recognize that the fundamental human rights of children are being ignored by warring parties. especially Goal 16, which asks the world community to make real progress in promoting peace and justice by 2030. Pediatricians may not be experts in armed conflict, but we are experts in what warfare does to the health and well-being of young children. It’s time to speak out and act.
I was asked recently about the trauma of 9/11 by a teen patient who was too young to remember the terrorist attacks. I was surprised that even today I become teary eyed thinking about it. My son was in his first week of college at Georgetown, and in the early confusion about what was going on I was panicked at reports of bombings in Washington. Fortunately, for me and my family at least, none of us were physically harmed. But the mental trauma still is with us. It was a momentary panic for me, but it’s not so fleeting for many families around the world today.
I can’t imagine what it is like today to be a parent in an armed conflict zone, or even in an area with very high levels of criminal violence. At a meeting of the International Society for Social Pediatrics (ISSOP), I learned that an estimated 1.5 billion residents of Earth, or about one in five inhabitants, lived in war zones or in areas of tremendous violence, according to the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report. And I learned that children are disproportionately affected – physically, mentally, and developmentally – from Stella Tsitoura, MD, of the Network for Children’s Rights, Athens, and others at the ISSOP meeting in Beirut, Lebanon, where pediatricians from around the world gathered in Oct. 2019 to consider what we as a profession should be doing in the context of armed conflict’s impact on so many children. The meeting was held in the Middle East because it is an especially hot conflict area, but children in South Asia, central Africa, South America, Central America, even rough inner-city areas in the United States are also affected.
Child soldiers in some parts of the world particularly are affected, sometimes being forced to commit violence on neighbors and kin. One country that I worked in years ago, Yemen, is a horrifying example of the complex impact of war on children and families. In 2017, over 2,100 children had been recruited as soldiers during the 3-year conflict in Yemen, a UNICEF representative reported. The death toll in Yemen was over 17,500 by Nov. 2018, according to a Human Rights Watch report.
Samuel Perlo-Freeman, PhD, an expert on the economics of arms trade, noted at the ISSOP meeting that two-thirds of civilian casualties in Yemen are caused by Coalition air strikes, whose members include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates. He also said rebel groups in Yemen and elsewhere acquire their arms by capture, by smuggling, or through the aid of foreign backers. Six countries – the United States, Russia, and several western European countries – account for the majority of war tools used in armed conflict zones. In June 2019, courts in Great Britain ruled that British arms sales to the parties involved in Yemen were illegal without an assessment as to whether any violation of internal humanitarian law had taken place.
Many of us feel impotent when facing the magnitude of this problem, and the lives of despair that affected children lead are sometimes too heart breaking to dwell on. ISSOP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the International Pediatric Association (IPA) are teaching us differently: Standing up for the human rights of children living in areas of conflict or refugees from those areas is our responsibility, both as individuals and as members of our pediatric associations. At a basic level we need to witness – we need to share what we see with our patients who have immigrated legally or illegally in our practices, our hospitals, and our communities. It’s important to be knowledgeable of current standards of clinical care outlined by both ISSOP and the AAP to ensure our patients affected by conflict and violence get appropriate treatment.
Some of the most lasting health impacts for children in conflict are their mental health needs; the World Health Organization prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings is 22%, according to a 2019 report in the Lancet (2019 Jun;394[10194]:240-8). Not only do mental health conditions last throughout a lifetime, the impact of war can affect generations through epigenetic forces.
Arms manufacturers should be held accountable as the courts are doing in Great Britain. Too often American-made armaments are falling into the wrong hands. More can be done to limit the sale of weapons that go into conflict zones. Chemical weapons, cluster bombs, and biologic weapons are banned by international agreement; shouldn’t we do the same with nuclear weapons?
Some pediatric health care facilities are impacted by the needs of traumatized children more than others. Countries at the front line of conflict – like Lebanon, Jordon, Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Mexico – should be supported in their efforts on behalf of child refugees. We need to share the burden and support entities such as Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, and the Red Cross/Crescent as they present themselves in crisis zones. We recognize that the fundamental human rights of children are being ignored by warring parties. especially Goal 16, which asks the world community to make real progress in promoting peace and justice by 2030. Pediatricians may not be experts in armed conflict, but we are experts in what warfare does to the health and well-being of young children. It’s time to speak out and act.
Patient poaching: High on practices’ dirty tricks list
Years ago, I wrote about patient poaching – the practice of stealing another practice’s patients without the patient or other physician realizing what’s going on.
This is high on the dirty tricks list of some practices. It’s certainly not illegal, but seems pretty unethical. Fortunately, it’s infrequent (at least where I work), but still occurs.
Recently, I encountered a particularly egregious example.
One of my patients, a nice lady in her 70s, had a syncopal event and landed in a hospital I don’t cover. A neurologist who saw her there did a brain MRI and head/neck MR angiogram, which were fine. A cardiology evaluation was also fine, so she was sent home. The neurologist there told her to follow-up with him at his office.
As my nurse says, “some people just do whatever they’re told, they don’t want to make a doctor angry.” So my patient did, and at the other doctor’s office had a four-limb electromyogram test and nerve conduction study, carotid Dopplers, transcranial Dopplers, and an EEG. He also made changes in her medications.
The first time I found out about it was when the patient scheduled an unrelated procedure, and I got a clearance request to take her off a medication in advance of it. Since I hadn’t started her on the medication (or was even aware she was on it) I refused, saying they’d have to contact the physician who prescribed it.
This got back to the patient, who was under the impression I’d been aware of all this the whole time, and she called the other neurologist to have his records sent to me.
When I got them, I was surprised to find he’d documented that I’d asked him to assume her outpatient care and do these studies for me. I have no recollection of such a conversation, and I would not have agreed to such a thing unless the patient had informed me she was transferring care to him (in which case it’s no longer my concern). Unless I was in a coma at the time this conversation occurred, I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen.
Basically, what the other doctor did was perform a walletectomy (or, in this case insurance-ectomy) on the patient under the guise (to her) that he was doing this as a favor to me.
How do you look yourself in mirror each day when you do stuff like this? Apparently, it’s easier for some doctors than it is for me.
I’ll do my best to keep it that way, too. I can’t change others, but I can do my best to take the high road.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Years ago, I wrote about patient poaching – the practice of stealing another practice’s patients without the patient or other physician realizing what’s going on.
This is high on the dirty tricks list of some practices. It’s certainly not illegal, but seems pretty unethical. Fortunately, it’s infrequent (at least where I work), but still occurs.
Recently, I encountered a particularly egregious example.
One of my patients, a nice lady in her 70s, had a syncopal event and landed in a hospital I don’t cover. A neurologist who saw her there did a brain MRI and head/neck MR angiogram, which were fine. A cardiology evaluation was also fine, so she was sent home. The neurologist there told her to follow-up with him at his office.
As my nurse says, “some people just do whatever they’re told, they don’t want to make a doctor angry.” So my patient did, and at the other doctor’s office had a four-limb electromyogram test and nerve conduction study, carotid Dopplers, transcranial Dopplers, and an EEG. He also made changes in her medications.
The first time I found out about it was when the patient scheduled an unrelated procedure, and I got a clearance request to take her off a medication in advance of it. Since I hadn’t started her on the medication (or was even aware she was on it) I refused, saying they’d have to contact the physician who prescribed it.
This got back to the patient, who was under the impression I’d been aware of all this the whole time, and she called the other neurologist to have his records sent to me.
When I got them, I was surprised to find he’d documented that I’d asked him to assume her outpatient care and do these studies for me. I have no recollection of such a conversation, and I would not have agreed to such a thing unless the patient had informed me she was transferring care to him (in which case it’s no longer my concern). Unless I was in a coma at the time this conversation occurred, I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen.
Basically, what the other doctor did was perform a walletectomy (or, in this case insurance-ectomy) on the patient under the guise (to her) that he was doing this as a favor to me.
How do you look yourself in mirror each day when you do stuff like this? Apparently, it’s easier for some doctors than it is for me.
I’ll do my best to keep it that way, too. I can’t change others, but I can do my best to take the high road.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Years ago, I wrote about patient poaching – the practice of stealing another practice’s patients without the patient or other physician realizing what’s going on.
This is high on the dirty tricks list of some practices. It’s certainly not illegal, but seems pretty unethical. Fortunately, it’s infrequent (at least where I work), but still occurs.
Recently, I encountered a particularly egregious example.
One of my patients, a nice lady in her 70s, had a syncopal event and landed in a hospital I don’t cover. A neurologist who saw her there did a brain MRI and head/neck MR angiogram, which were fine. A cardiology evaluation was also fine, so she was sent home. The neurologist there told her to follow-up with him at his office.
As my nurse says, “some people just do whatever they’re told, they don’t want to make a doctor angry.” So my patient did, and at the other doctor’s office had a four-limb electromyogram test and nerve conduction study, carotid Dopplers, transcranial Dopplers, and an EEG. He also made changes in her medications.
The first time I found out about it was when the patient scheduled an unrelated procedure, and I got a clearance request to take her off a medication in advance of it. Since I hadn’t started her on the medication (or was even aware she was on it) I refused, saying they’d have to contact the physician who prescribed it.
This got back to the patient, who was under the impression I’d been aware of all this the whole time, and she called the other neurologist to have his records sent to me.
When I got them, I was surprised to find he’d documented that I’d asked him to assume her outpatient care and do these studies for me. I have no recollection of such a conversation, and I would not have agreed to such a thing unless the patient had informed me she was transferring care to him (in which case it’s no longer my concern). Unless I was in a coma at the time this conversation occurred, I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen.
Basically, what the other doctor did was perform a walletectomy (or, in this case insurance-ectomy) on the patient under the guise (to her) that he was doing this as a favor to me.
How do you look yourself in mirror each day when you do stuff like this? Apparently, it’s easier for some doctors than it is for me.
I’ll do my best to keep it that way, too. I can’t change others, but I can do my best to take the high road.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Psychiatrists urged to look beyond the ‘monoamine island’
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Now that 2019 has passed us by, it is a time for reflection for most of us. We can think about the state of our important relationships, perhaps the growth of our children or other loved ones, the trajectory of our practices, and ideas for the future. Most commonly, I would wager, we likely think about how we might do things differently in the new year.
Applying this lens to our chosen profession, the practice of clinical psychiatry, I hope 2020 brings real, or at least, incremental change. Our profession has evolved markedly over the last several decades, from psychoanalysis to the psychopharmacology revolution, to a now largely multimodal approach. Our treatment of psychiatric illness has evolved and, for the most part, improved the lives of millions across the country and around the world.
However, in so doing, we have, perhaps inadvertently, or maybe out of necessity, found ourselves on an allegorical island that we, as clinical, everyday psychiatrists defend to the death. Surrounded by an ocean of psychiatric disorders, illnesses, and symptomatology, we wave our prescription pads (or e-pads), like wands, hoping to calm the torrents of the psychiatric sea with yet another prescription. However, I’m not writing this to bemoan modern psychopharmacology, for it has saved and improved lives and led to a fruitful practice and livelihood for me and most of my colleagues. As the torrents of illness continue to flare around us, I’m not advocating that we put down our wands and become strictly therapists. What I am advocating for is the use of different wands, as it were.
Our chosen wand is undoubtedly largely composed of monoamine-based remedies – most involving the holy trinity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. As we stand on our island, trying to quell hurricane-force winds, shark-infested waters, or a tidal wave, we wave the same wand – hoping that a dash of monoamine will slow down winds, scare away sharks, and reduce the destructive capacity of water.
We, more than those in any other medical profession, use the same basic treatments for heterogeneous disorders, whose true underlying physiology, despite important progress over the years, remains elusive and only partly understood. We see improvement and even resolution sometimes, but, for the most part, our treatments keep our patients going, so they can continue to sail, just avoiding being capsized by the psychiatric torrents beneath the surface. When the torrents flare, we wave the same wand again, hoping that another dash of monoamine modulation, this time, maybe in a new wrapper, or with a new name, will keep the ocean calm for a bit longer. Now, this has worked for decades to keep many ships from being capsized and our island still largely habitable, but this strategy is akin to building a shelter out of twigs and leaves and grasses, and never advancing to permanent construction techniques, and just replacing broken branches and leaves that will, undoubtedly, break again.
As we stand on our island, I say, we use the branches, leaves, and twigs to build a bridge to another island, and, there, we can make new wands.
In 2020, the materials for these new wands are readily available, but we have to be willing to trust these new wands, and yet not completely discard the old wands we have used for so long. These new wands are the nonmonoamine-based treatments, which have shown remarkable efficacy and safety in patients across the country and the world. We must accept that we, as a species, are remarkably complex creatures, and the disorders we try to treat have their origins in the most complex part of our being: the brain. Therefore, considering the complexity, it is only reasonable to think that there is more to our illnesses than modulating monoamines.
In 2020, I challenge every day, clinical psychiatrists to embrace these new treatments and wave these new wands. As someone who has been fortunate enough to prescribe ketamine infusion and nasal sprays in the clinic, I can say we must gravitate toward these new treatments when clinically appropriate. While ketamine treatment is no panacea, its use, and the adoption of other nonmonoamine-based treatments, hopefully will fuel the development, use, and perhaps, most importantly, novel thinking about new biological treatment of psychiatric illness.
Dr. Shroff is board-certified in psychiatry in sleep medicine, and practices in Smyrna, Ga. He is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
New Year’s resolutions for your GI practice in 2020
I know that many have already started the planning process for next year’s business priorities and therefore I remain hopeful that time was taken to reflect on the success stories already achieved to provide the foundation for next year’s business goals.
What is key, is that one recognizes that the planning process must begin this year to kickstart next year’s work soon after the holidays are over. This planning process should lay out the framework from which to assign the work so it’s part of the business operations wherein goals can be established and ultimately achieved.
As we move into a new decade the evolution of medicine and specifically gastroenterology hasn’t stopped. The question is, have you set yourself (and your practice) up for success in 2020? In the ever-changing world of the gastroenterology practice you don’t want to be left behind this year. Here are the top things you need to know for a productive and successful new year!
1. Use the new Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI). Starting January 1, 2020, if you want to get paid by Medicare you must use the MBI when billing Medicare regardless of the date of service. Claims submitted without MBIs will be rejected, with some exceptions. The MBI replaces the social security number–based Health Insurance Claim Numbers (HICNs) from Medicare cards and is now used for Medicare transactions like billing, eligibility status, and claim status.
2. Prepare for Evaluation and Management (E/M) changes. Did you know that E/M coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation? The changes to guidelines and coding for new and established office/outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) won’t officially take place until January 1, 2021, but they are so significant that the American Medical Association has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes. Don’t miss out on the preview – https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf. Sit down with your coders or contact your medical billing company and create a plan for training physicians and staff for the changes for a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021. With changes this big, you may find you need all of 2020 to prepare.
3. Review your quality reporting under the Merit-Based Incentive System (MIPS). There have been several changes to the weights of quality and cost performance categories under MIPS for the 2020 performance year. These will go into effect January 1st and will impact your 2022 Medicare payments.
4. Evaluate your clinician participation level if you’re reporting under MIPS as a group. During the 2020 performance year, the threshold for clinician participation is increasing. At least 50% of clinicians from the group must participate in or perform an activity for the same continuous 90-day period to earn credit for that improvement activity.
5. Don’t forget to report under MIPS for 2019. Those not in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM), a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or other MIPS alternative must report the required data under the program or face payment cuts in 2021. The submission window for your 2019 data opens on January 2, 2020 and closes on March 31st!
6. Review your commercial contracts. With reimbursement decreasing each year, protect yourself by renegotiating multi-year contract rates now with payers based on the 2019 fee schedule. Review all your commercial contracts and focus on the ones with the lowest rates first. Prepare a case to justify higher rates by creating a value proposition and don’t forget to involve your coders; they are often aware of payer-specific reimbursement problems. Not comfortable negotiating with payers? Be open to looking for outside help, like a contract attorney.
7. Mark your calendars! Here’s a list of dates that you will want to put on your calendar for 2020!
December 2019
December 31 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Ends
December 31 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31 - Fourth snapshot date for full TIN APMs (Medicare Shared Savings Program) for determining which eligible clinicians are participating in a MIPS APM for purposes of the APM scoring standard.
January 2020
January 1 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Begins
January 2 - Submission Window Opens for MIPS Performance Year 2019
March 2020
March 31 - Submission Window Closes for MIPS Performance Year 2019
July 2020
• CMS publishes proposed reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule
• CMS “Targeted Review” opens once CMS makes your MIPS payment adjustment available
• July 1 - MIPS Performance Feedback Available. CMS will provide you with performance feedback based on the data you submitted for Performance Year 2019. You can use this feedback to improve your care and optimize the payments you receive from CMS.
August 2020
August 31 - Targeted Review period closes (appeals process)
September 2020
AMA releases CPT 2021 book with new E/M coding guidelines and new coding for new patient office/outpatient visits (99202-99205)
October 2020
October 1, 2020 – Final day to start QPP activities to meet 90-day minimum.
November 2020
CMS finalizes reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the MPFS final rule
December 2020
December 31, 2020 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31, 2020 – MIPS Performance year 2020 ends
Stress to your team that proper planning is the norm and not the exception, and that seeking improvement in all facets of your medical practice is critical to achieving long-term success. Be sure to write your plans in the future tense and to include timelines in your final work product, as well as delegate accountability to accomplish those goals.
Use the planning process as an opportunity to build your team so that everyone is focused on the future and stress that their participation is important to achieve the success required to remain an independent medical group.
Mr. Turner is chief executive officer, Indianapolis Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indianapolis. jturner@indygastro.com
I know that many have already started the planning process for next year’s business priorities and therefore I remain hopeful that time was taken to reflect on the success stories already achieved to provide the foundation for next year’s business goals.
What is key, is that one recognizes that the planning process must begin this year to kickstart next year’s work soon after the holidays are over. This planning process should lay out the framework from which to assign the work so it’s part of the business operations wherein goals can be established and ultimately achieved.
As we move into a new decade the evolution of medicine and specifically gastroenterology hasn’t stopped. The question is, have you set yourself (and your practice) up for success in 2020? In the ever-changing world of the gastroenterology practice you don’t want to be left behind this year. Here are the top things you need to know for a productive and successful new year!
1. Use the new Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI). Starting January 1, 2020, if you want to get paid by Medicare you must use the MBI when billing Medicare regardless of the date of service. Claims submitted without MBIs will be rejected, with some exceptions. The MBI replaces the social security number–based Health Insurance Claim Numbers (HICNs) from Medicare cards and is now used for Medicare transactions like billing, eligibility status, and claim status.
2. Prepare for Evaluation and Management (E/M) changes. Did you know that E/M coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation? The changes to guidelines and coding for new and established office/outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) won’t officially take place until January 1, 2021, but they are so significant that the American Medical Association has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes. Don’t miss out on the preview – https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf. Sit down with your coders or contact your medical billing company and create a plan for training physicians and staff for the changes for a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021. With changes this big, you may find you need all of 2020 to prepare.
3. Review your quality reporting under the Merit-Based Incentive System (MIPS). There have been several changes to the weights of quality and cost performance categories under MIPS for the 2020 performance year. These will go into effect January 1st and will impact your 2022 Medicare payments.
4. Evaluate your clinician participation level if you’re reporting under MIPS as a group. During the 2020 performance year, the threshold for clinician participation is increasing. At least 50% of clinicians from the group must participate in or perform an activity for the same continuous 90-day period to earn credit for that improvement activity.
5. Don’t forget to report under MIPS for 2019. Those not in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM), a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or other MIPS alternative must report the required data under the program or face payment cuts in 2021. The submission window for your 2019 data opens on January 2, 2020 and closes on March 31st!
6. Review your commercial contracts. With reimbursement decreasing each year, protect yourself by renegotiating multi-year contract rates now with payers based on the 2019 fee schedule. Review all your commercial contracts and focus on the ones with the lowest rates first. Prepare a case to justify higher rates by creating a value proposition and don’t forget to involve your coders; they are often aware of payer-specific reimbursement problems. Not comfortable negotiating with payers? Be open to looking for outside help, like a contract attorney.
7. Mark your calendars! Here’s a list of dates that you will want to put on your calendar for 2020!
December 2019
December 31 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Ends
December 31 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31 - Fourth snapshot date for full TIN APMs (Medicare Shared Savings Program) for determining which eligible clinicians are participating in a MIPS APM for purposes of the APM scoring standard.
January 2020
January 1 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Begins
January 2 - Submission Window Opens for MIPS Performance Year 2019
March 2020
March 31 - Submission Window Closes for MIPS Performance Year 2019
July 2020
• CMS publishes proposed reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule
• CMS “Targeted Review” opens once CMS makes your MIPS payment adjustment available
• July 1 - MIPS Performance Feedback Available. CMS will provide you with performance feedback based on the data you submitted for Performance Year 2019. You can use this feedback to improve your care and optimize the payments you receive from CMS.
August 2020
August 31 - Targeted Review period closes (appeals process)
September 2020
AMA releases CPT 2021 book with new E/M coding guidelines and new coding for new patient office/outpatient visits (99202-99205)
October 2020
October 1, 2020 – Final day to start QPP activities to meet 90-day minimum.
November 2020
CMS finalizes reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the MPFS final rule
December 2020
December 31, 2020 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31, 2020 – MIPS Performance year 2020 ends
Stress to your team that proper planning is the norm and not the exception, and that seeking improvement in all facets of your medical practice is critical to achieving long-term success. Be sure to write your plans in the future tense and to include timelines in your final work product, as well as delegate accountability to accomplish those goals.
Use the planning process as an opportunity to build your team so that everyone is focused on the future and stress that their participation is important to achieve the success required to remain an independent medical group.
Mr. Turner is chief executive officer, Indianapolis Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indianapolis. jturner@indygastro.com
I know that many have already started the planning process for next year’s business priorities and therefore I remain hopeful that time was taken to reflect on the success stories already achieved to provide the foundation for next year’s business goals.
What is key, is that one recognizes that the planning process must begin this year to kickstart next year’s work soon after the holidays are over. This planning process should lay out the framework from which to assign the work so it’s part of the business operations wherein goals can be established and ultimately achieved.
As we move into a new decade the evolution of medicine and specifically gastroenterology hasn’t stopped. The question is, have you set yourself (and your practice) up for success in 2020? In the ever-changing world of the gastroenterology practice you don’t want to be left behind this year. Here are the top things you need to know for a productive and successful new year!
1. Use the new Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI). Starting January 1, 2020, if you want to get paid by Medicare you must use the MBI when billing Medicare regardless of the date of service. Claims submitted without MBIs will be rejected, with some exceptions. The MBI replaces the social security number–based Health Insurance Claim Numbers (HICNs) from Medicare cards and is now used for Medicare transactions like billing, eligibility status, and claim status.
2. Prepare for Evaluation and Management (E/M) changes. Did you know that E/M coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation? The changes to guidelines and coding for new and established office/outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) won’t officially take place until January 1, 2021, but they are so significant that the American Medical Association has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes. Don’t miss out on the preview – https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf. Sit down with your coders or contact your medical billing company and create a plan for training physicians and staff for the changes for a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021. With changes this big, you may find you need all of 2020 to prepare.
3. Review your quality reporting under the Merit-Based Incentive System (MIPS). There have been several changes to the weights of quality and cost performance categories under MIPS for the 2020 performance year. These will go into effect January 1st and will impact your 2022 Medicare payments.
4. Evaluate your clinician participation level if you’re reporting under MIPS as a group. During the 2020 performance year, the threshold for clinician participation is increasing. At least 50% of clinicians from the group must participate in or perform an activity for the same continuous 90-day period to earn credit for that improvement activity.
5. Don’t forget to report under MIPS for 2019. Those not in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM), a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or other MIPS alternative must report the required data under the program or face payment cuts in 2021. The submission window for your 2019 data opens on January 2, 2020 and closes on March 31st!
6. Review your commercial contracts. With reimbursement decreasing each year, protect yourself by renegotiating multi-year contract rates now with payers based on the 2019 fee schedule. Review all your commercial contracts and focus on the ones with the lowest rates first. Prepare a case to justify higher rates by creating a value proposition and don’t forget to involve your coders; they are often aware of payer-specific reimbursement problems. Not comfortable negotiating with payers? Be open to looking for outside help, like a contract attorney.
7. Mark your calendars! Here’s a list of dates that you will want to put on your calendar for 2020!
December 2019
December 31 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Ends
December 31 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31 - Fourth snapshot date for full TIN APMs (Medicare Shared Savings Program) for determining which eligible clinicians are participating in a MIPS APM for purposes of the APM scoring standard.
January 2020
January 1 - MIPS Performance Year 2019 Begins
January 2 - Submission Window Opens for MIPS Performance Year 2019
March 2020
March 31 - Submission Window Closes for MIPS Performance Year 2019
July 2020
• CMS publishes proposed reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule
• CMS “Targeted Review” opens once CMS makes your MIPS payment adjustment available
• July 1 - MIPS Performance Feedback Available. CMS will provide you with performance feedback based on the data you submitted for Performance Year 2019. You can use this feedback to improve your care and optimize the payments you receive from CMS.
August 2020
August 31 - Targeted Review period closes (appeals process)
September 2020
AMA releases CPT 2021 book with new E/M coding guidelines and new coding for new patient office/outpatient visits (99202-99205)
October 2020
October 1, 2020 – Final day to start QPP activities to meet 90-day minimum.
November 2020
CMS finalizes reimbursement values for the E/M codes in the MPFS final rule
December 2020
December 31, 2020 - Quality Payment Program Exception Applications Window Closes
December 31, 2020 – MIPS Performance year 2020 ends
Stress to your team that proper planning is the norm and not the exception, and that seeking improvement in all facets of your medical practice is critical to achieving long-term success. Be sure to write your plans in the future tense and to include timelines in your final work product, as well as delegate accountability to accomplish those goals.
Use the planning process as an opportunity to build your team so that everyone is focused on the future and stress that their participation is important to achieve the success required to remain an independent medical group.
Mr. Turner is chief executive officer, Indianapolis Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indianapolis. jturner@indygastro.com
Tectonic shift
Every community practice gastroenterologist knows that private equity is making an aggressive push into our specialty. This is a tectonic shift in GI practice and the implications for private practice, academic training programs, and our GI societies are substantial. Gastro Health (Florida), Atlanta Gastro (Georgia), and GI Alliance (Texas) all closed deals with private equity in 2018 and there are reported to be 16-20 deals completed or in process currently. The three “first movers” formed practice management companies that now have acquired numerous large and small practices around the country. We have one practice with more than 200 physicians and we will see single groups of 500-1000 in the near future.
Imagine what a digestive health multi-state practice of 500 physicians (gastroenterologists, pathologists, surgeons), 200 advance practice providers (APPs) plus other ancillary professionals (psychology, nutrition) could accomplish. Gross revenues could top $1 billion. All back-office operations would be consolidated and managed professionally. Each provider would work top of license so much routine care would be shifted away from MDs. Negotiating power with payers, vendors, hospital systems, and referring providers would be immense (care would be taken to avoid the appearance of a monopoly, but Department of Justice scrutiny has already been evident). Referral sources (CVS, Optum, health systems, and a few remaining independent practices) would be secured by contract or favored reimbursement rates. Academic health systems will find competition challenging save for high tertiary and quaternary care, but even these complex procedures often will have been consolidated (and contained within risk-bundles) to a half dozen health systems by direct-to-employer contracting. Current society offerings such as meetings, journals, and clinical guidelines will become obsolete because of practice-distributed virtual education, open publishing, and internal outcomes measurement. The vast provider network will be on a single data platform so it can generate true outcomes based on a payer’s patient base (not guideline-restricted process measures), and these outcomes will be used for negotiating restricted networks.
I hope these trends will be a clarion call for our societies and training programs to awaken to a new world order and adapt their efforts to meet demands from our patients and the critical (and changing) needs of current and future digestive health professionals.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
Every community practice gastroenterologist knows that private equity is making an aggressive push into our specialty. This is a tectonic shift in GI practice and the implications for private practice, academic training programs, and our GI societies are substantial. Gastro Health (Florida), Atlanta Gastro (Georgia), and GI Alliance (Texas) all closed deals with private equity in 2018 and there are reported to be 16-20 deals completed or in process currently. The three “first movers” formed practice management companies that now have acquired numerous large and small practices around the country. We have one practice with more than 200 physicians and we will see single groups of 500-1000 in the near future.
Imagine what a digestive health multi-state practice of 500 physicians (gastroenterologists, pathologists, surgeons), 200 advance practice providers (APPs) plus other ancillary professionals (psychology, nutrition) could accomplish. Gross revenues could top $1 billion. All back-office operations would be consolidated and managed professionally. Each provider would work top of license so much routine care would be shifted away from MDs. Negotiating power with payers, vendors, hospital systems, and referring providers would be immense (care would be taken to avoid the appearance of a monopoly, but Department of Justice scrutiny has already been evident). Referral sources (CVS, Optum, health systems, and a few remaining independent practices) would be secured by contract or favored reimbursement rates. Academic health systems will find competition challenging save for high tertiary and quaternary care, but even these complex procedures often will have been consolidated (and contained within risk-bundles) to a half dozen health systems by direct-to-employer contracting. Current society offerings such as meetings, journals, and clinical guidelines will become obsolete because of practice-distributed virtual education, open publishing, and internal outcomes measurement. The vast provider network will be on a single data platform so it can generate true outcomes based on a payer’s patient base (not guideline-restricted process measures), and these outcomes will be used for negotiating restricted networks.
I hope these trends will be a clarion call for our societies and training programs to awaken to a new world order and adapt their efforts to meet demands from our patients and the critical (and changing) needs of current and future digestive health professionals.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
Every community practice gastroenterologist knows that private equity is making an aggressive push into our specialty. This is a tectonic shift in GI practice and the implications for private practice, academic training programs, and our GI societies are substantial. Gastro Health (Florida), Atlanta Gastro (Georgia), and GI Alliance (Texas) all closed deals with private equity in 2018 and there are reported to be 16-20 deals completed or in process currently. The three “first movers” formed practice management companies that now have acquired numerous large and small practices around the country. We have one practice with more than 200 physicians and we will see single groups of 500-1000 in the near future.
Imagine what a digestive health multi-state practice of 500 physicians (gastroenterologists, pathologists, surgeons), 200 advance practice providers (APPs) plus other ancillary professionals (psychology, nutrition) could accomplish. Gross revenues could top $1 billion. All back-office operations would be consolidated and managed professionally. Each provider would work top of license so much routine care would be shifted away from MDs. Negotiating power with payers, vendors, hospital systems, and referring providers would be immense (care would be taken to avoid the appearance of a monopoly, but Department of Justice scrutiny has already been evident). Referral sources (CVS, Optum, health systems, and a few remaining independent practices) would be secured by contract or favored reimbursement rates. Academic health systems will find competition challenging save for high tertiary and quaternary care, but even these complex procedures often will have been consolidated (and contained within risk-bundles) to a half dozen health systems by direct-to-employer contracting. Current society offerings such as meetings, journals, and clinical guidelines will become obsolete because of practice-distributed virtual education, open publishing, and internal outcomes measurement. The vast provider network will be on a single data platform so it can generate true outcomes based on a payer’s patient base (not guideline-restricted process measures), and these outcomes will be used for negotiating restricted networks.
I hope these trends will be a clarion call for our societies and training programs to awaken to a new world order and adapt their efforts to meet demands from our patients and the critical (and changing) needs of current and future digestive health professionals.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief
Book review: New understanding offered of personality development
Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.
Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.
Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).
The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.
Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.
The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.
The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.
To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.
In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?
This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.
The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.
Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.
Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.
Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).
The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.
Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.
The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.
The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.
To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.
In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?
This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.
The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.
Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.
Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.
Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).
The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.
Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.
The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.
The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.
To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.
In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?
This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.
The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role.
Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.
Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.