User login
Health policy Q&A: Oncology Care Model
The Oncology Care Model is a value-based payment approach aimed at encouraging coordinated cancer care through targeted bonus payments to practices. The payment experiment was launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2016 and now includes 175 practices and 10 payers. It is set to end in 2021. As agency officials consider whether to continue the program, Stephen S. Grubbs, MD, vice president for clinical affairs at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, weighs in on the model’s track record and its future.
Question: How would you rate the Oncology Care Model in helping to drive practice transformation?
Dr. Grubbs: Participants in the Oncology Care Model (OCM) have demonstrated improved care coordination, psychosocial support, use of risk assessment tools, and other strategies to lower costs and adverse events. Over the past 2 years, ASCO has accepted numerous posters, articles, and abstracts from OCM participants on their outstanding work to advance cancer care delivery.
Question: Should the model be extended beyond 2021?
Dr. Grubbs: Changes to the model are necessary prior to a significant extension or expansion. Some have suggested that CMS extend OCM for an additional year with current participants. This would give CMS time to consider input from all stakeholders on its eventual replacement.
Question: What additional resources or payments do oncology practices need to be more successful in meeting the goals of the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: OCM has shown that by providing oncologists with payment for care management – OCM participants receive $160 per patient, per month – the results are better care coordination and reduced hospital and emergency department visits. If CMS chooses to expand payments to all oncology providers, we could expect to see improved care for cancer patients.
Question: ASCO has advanced its own Patient-Centered Oncology Payment model. What are the main elements of this strategy and how does it differ from the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: The Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model is the result of input from a wide group of stakeholders, including providers, employers, and managed care organizations. In the coming months, ASCO will publish an updated copy of the PCOP model.
Our review of OCM is that the included prediction model and two-sided risk options place small, rural, and certain other practices at considerable peril because of imprecise and inconsistent cost predictions. PCOP takes a different approach. Rather than requiring that practices take on actuarial risk for total cost of care, PCOP includes a three-part performance methodology. Practices are measured on adherence to clinical treatment pathways; electronically capturable quality measures; and select, targeted cost-of-care measures. Practices that perform well in PCOP’s performance methodology receive increased incentive payments to fund further advancements in care.
Question: The PCOP model includes payments to oncology practices for participation in clinical trials. How might that drive a change in behavior in a typical practice?
Dr. Grubbs: Practices that enroll patients in clinical trials have the same or greater storage and handling requirements as those treated with standard treatments, yet forgo revenue associated with the Medicare Part B average sales price methodology. PCOP ensures that such practices are not disadvantaged for supporting clinical research.
Question: Are there other areas – such as tumor biomarker tests – in which a tailored payment approach would improve the quality of care?
Dr. Grubbs: Recent studies have shown that not all patients receive the appropriate genomic profiling and other tests necessary to ensure that they benefit from personalized therapies. Clinical treatment pathways have the ability to inform and measure diagnostic completeness to improve the quality of care.
Question: What are the barriers that are keeping oncology practices from participating in alternative payment models designed to improve care?
Dr. Grubbs: Some alternative payment models, such as OCM, place a high administrative burden on their participants. Manual reporting of measures and clinical data, complicated billing requirements, and lack of support from electronic health record vendors create barriers for expanded participation. Practices are also concerned about the financial risks placed upon participants; it is impractical to expect that physicians hire actuaries in order to participate in a Medicare program.
ASCO has offered support for OCM practices through its PracticeNET benchmarking program, but we have also proposed PCOP as an appropriate alternative, applicable to practices of all types and sizes.
Dr. Grubbs joined ASCO in 2015 as the vice president of the newly launched clinical affairs department. Before joining ASCO, Dr. Grubbs worked as a community oncologist and managing partner at Medical Oncology Hematology Consultants in Newark, Del. Dr. Grubbs is a volunteer and the principal investigator of the Delaware Christiana Care National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Grubbs reported having no financial disclosures.
The Oncology Care Model is a value-based payment approach aimed at encouraging coordinated cancer care through targeted bonus payments to practices. The payment experiment was launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2016 and now includes 175 practices and 10 payers. It is set to end in 2021. As agency officials consider whether to continue the program, Stephen S. Grubbs, MD, vice president for clinical affairs at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, weighs in on the model’s track record and its future.
Question: How would you rate the Oncology Care Model in helping to drive practice transformation?
Dr. Grubbs: Participants in the Oncology Care Model (OCM) have demonstrated improved care coordination, psychosocial support, use of risk assessment tools, and other strategies to lower costs and adverse events. Over the past 2 years, ASCO has accepted numerous posters, articles, and abstracts from OCM participants on their outstanding work to advance cancer care delivery.
Question: Should the model be extended beyond 2021?
Dr. Grubbs: Changes to the model are necessary prior to a significant extension or expansion. Some have suggested that CMS extend OCM for an additional year with current participants. This would give CMS time to consider input from all stakeholders on its eventual replacement.
Question: What additional resources or payments do oncology practices need to be more successful in meeting the goals of the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: OCM has shown that by providing oncologists with payment for care management – OCM participants receive $160 per patient, per month – the results are better care coordination and reduced hospital and emergency department visits. If CMS chooses to expand payments to all oncology providers, we could expect to see improved care for cancer patients.
Question: ASCO has advanced its own Patient-Centered Oncology Payment model. What are the main elements of this strategy and how does it differ from the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: The Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model is the result of input from a wide group of stakeholders, including providers, employers, and managed care organizations. In the coming months, ASCO will publish an updated copy of the PCOP model.
Our review of OCM is that the included prediction model and two-sided risk options place small, rural, and certain other practices at considerable peril because of imprecise and inconsistent cost predictions. PCOP takes a different approach. Rather than requiring that practices take on actuarial risk for total cost of care, PCOP includes a three-part performance methodology. Practices are measured on adherence to clinical treatment pathways; electronically capturable quality measures; and select, targeted cost-of-care measures. Practices that perform well in PCOP’s performance methodology receive increased incentive payments to fund further advancements in care.
Question: The PCOP model includes payments to oncology practices for participation in clinical trials. How might that drive a change in behavior in a typical practice?
Dr. Grubbs: Practices that enroll patients in clinical trials have the same or greater storage and handling requirements as those treated with standard treatments, yet forgo revenue associated with the Medicare Part B average sales price methodology. PCOP ensures that such practices are not disadvantaged for supporting clinical research.
Question: Are there other areas – such as tumor biomarker tests – in which a tailored payment approach would improve the quality of care?
Dr. Grubbs: Recent studies have shown that not all patients receive the appropriate genomic profiling and other tests necessary to ensure that they benefit from personalized therapies. Clinical treatment pathways have the ability to inform and measure diagnostic completeness to improve the quality of care.
Question: What are the barriers that are keeping oncology practices from participating in alternative payment models designed to improve care?
Dr. Grubbs: Some alternative payment models, such as OCM, place a high administrative burden on their participants. Manual reporting of measures and clinical data, complicated billing requirements, and lack of support from electronic health record vendors create barriers for expanded participation. Practices are also concerned about the financial risks placed upon participants; it is impractical to expect that physicians hire actuaries in order to participate in a Medicare program.
ASCO has offered support for OCM practices through its PracticeNET benchmarking program, but we have also proposed PCOP as an appropriate alternative, applicable to practices of all types and sizes.
Dr. Grubbs joined ASCO in 2015 as the vice president of the newly launched clinical affairs department. Before joining ASCO, Dr. Grubbs worked as a community oncologist and managing partner at Medical Oncology Hematology Consultants in Newark, Del. Dr. Grubbs is a volunteer and the principal investigator of the Delaware Christiana Care National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Grubbs reported having no financial disclosures.
The Oncology Care Model is a value-based payment approach aimed at encouraging coordinated cancer care through targeted bonus payments to practices. The payment experiment was launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2016 and now includes 175 practices and 10 payers. It is set to end in 2021. As agency officials consider whether to continue the program, Stephen S. Grubbs, MD, vice president for clinical affairs at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, weighs in on the model’s track record and its future.
Question: How would you rate the Oncology Care Model in helping to drive practice transformation?
Dr. Grubbs: Participants in the Oncology Care Model (OCM) have demonstrated improved care coordination, psychosocial support, use of risk assessment tools, and other strategies to lower costs and adverse events. Over the past 2 years, ASCO has accepted numerous posters, articles, and abstracts from OCM participants on their outstanding work to advance cancer care delivery.
Question: Should the model be extended beyond 2021?
Dr. Grubbs: Changes to the model are necessary prior to a significant extension or expansion. Some have suggested that CMS extend OCM for an additional year with current participants. This would give CMS time to consider input from all stakeholders on its eventual replacement.
Question: What additional resources or payments do oncology practices need to be more successful in meeting the goals of the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: OCM has shown that by providing oncologists with payment for care management – OCM participants receive $160 per patient, per month – the results are better care coordination and reduced hospital and emergency department visits. If CMS chooses to expand payments to all oncology providers, we could expect to see improved care for cancer patients.
Question: ASCO has advanced its own Patient-Centered Oncology Payment model. What are the main elements of this strategy and how does it differ from the Oncology Care Model?
Dr. Grubbs: The Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model is the result of input from a wide group of stakeholders, including providers, employers, and managed care organizations. In the coming months, ASCO will publish an updated copy of the PCOP model.
Our review of OCM is that the included prediction model and two-sided risk options place small, rural, and certain other practices at considerable peril because of imprecise and inconsistent cost predictions. PCOP takes a different approach. Rather than requiring that practices take on actuarial risk for total cost of care, PCOP includes a three-part performance methodology. Practices are measured on adherence to clinical treatment pathways; electronically capturable quality measures; and select, targeted cost-of-care measures. Practices that perform well in PCOP’s performance methodology receive increased incentive payments to fund further advancements in care.
Question: The PCOP model includes payments to oncology practices for participation in clinical trials. How might that drive a change in behavior in a typical practice?
Dr. Grubbs: Practices that enroll patients in clinical trials have the same or greater storage and handling requirements as those treated with standard treatments, yet forgo revenue associated with the Medicare Part B average sales price methodology. PCOP ensures that such practices are not disadvantaged for supporting clinical research.
Question: Are there other areas – such as tumor biomarker tests – in which a tailored payment approach would improve the quality of care?
Dr. Grubbs: Recent studies have shown that not all patients receive the appropriate genomic profiling and other tests necessary to ensure that they benefit from personalized therapies. Clinical treatment pathways have the ability to inform and measure diagnostic completeness to improve the quality of care.
Question: What are the barriers that are keeping oncology practices from participating in alternative payment models designed to improve care?
Dr. Grubbs: Some alternative payment models, such as OCM, place a high administrative burden on their participants. Manual reporting of measures and clinical data, complicated billing requirements, and lack of support from electronic health record vendors create barriers for expanded participation. Practices are also concerned about the financial risks placed upon participants; it is impractical to expect that physicians hire actuaries in order to participate in a Medicare program.
ASCO has offered support for OCM practices through its PracticeNET benchmarking program, but we have also proposed PCOP as an appropriate alternative, applicable to practices of all types and sizes.
Dr. Grubbs joined ASCO in 2015 as the vice president of the newly launched clinical affairs department. Before joining ASCO, Dr. Grubbs worked as a community oncologist and managing partner at Medical Oncology Hematology Consultants in Newark, Del. Dr. Grubbs is a volunteer and the principal investigator of the Delaware Christiana Care National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Dr. Grubbs reported having no financial disclosures.
Finding the right job
. There is some useful material pertaining to this topic on the American Academy of Dermatology website, which I helped develop. This should help you decide whether you want to go solo, small group, large group, VA, or academic practice. These options all have certain advantages and drawbacks.
Your first decision should be where you want to practice geographically, which will determine many of the details of any practice situation. For instance, if you go where there is a shortage of dermatologists, you will be more welcome and more sought after. I will never forget sitting in a hospital break room in New York City after giving grand rounds with a large group of residents, who asked me about practice opportunities. I asked them where they wanted to practice. Every resident – first, second, and third year – indicated they wanted to stay in New York City. I had to laugh to myself. If there are any cities with a surplus of dermatologists, it’s the hip ones: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and so on. If you can find a job there, it will be a “this is what everyone signs” contract situation, and a large part of your pay is the privilege of living in an urban “paradise.”
If you are willing to look further afield, I suggest you start with an old classic, the “Places Rated Almanac: The Classic Guide for Finding Your Best Places to Live in America” (Washington: Places Rated Books, 2007). This is a resource (that needs a new edition) that provides all kinds of details on different areas of the country that you may not have considered, including median income, schools, climate, and livability.
When you know the general area where you would like to settle – and after considering the parents, the in-laws, and the outlaws – remember that the best jobs are not advertised. You should contact all the dermatology, multispeciality, and hospital groups in the area (yes, write them a nice snail mail letter) indicating you are interested, and ask them if they are hiring. Practices are usually interested in a general dermatologist, or perhaps a Mohs surgeon or dermatopathologist, willing to practice general dermatology half time. For example, I know a very nice general dermatology practice in the Midwest that has been looking for the right derm-path/general derm for years. The days of strolling in and setting up an all-Mohs or all-dermpath practice are over, unless you buy out, or become employed by one of the older established specialist groups.
Ask the staff (and former physician employees if you can find them) lots of questions. See if their style of medicine suits you. See if their electronic health record system is fast or a major hindrance. Find out how many extenders you will be responsible for supervising.
And find out if they are considering selling out (selling you) to private equity. Private equity groups are a major new influence on the specialty, run a lot of ads, and hire a lot of graduating dermatologists. They offer more benefits and higher initial salaries. There is no free lunch, however, and these perks must be paid back with future earnings. The private equity groups take 20%-30% of profits “off the top” and your earnings will hit a ceiling at a level that is significantly lower than it would be in a solo practice or dermatology group. They also have long, detailed, ferocious contracts with penalty clauses and noncompetes from all outlets. More numerous advertisements are a negative tip off, but will give you an idea of which markets they think are promising with regard to need and payer mix. See what the private equity group’s private health insurance rates are. If they are significantly greater than Medicare rates, they deserve a second look, though few are. Remember that the senior physician who pitches for them in the lounge doesn’t work for free, but receives a significant bonus for getting you to sign.
If you find a great location, it is time for contract review. The first rule is that no contract is better than who you sign it with. If they are determined to mistreat you, they will – no matter the contract. I advise always having a graceful exit written into the contract specifying severance terms (if any), even if you never need this.
If you are ready to work hard and make more income, you should forgo the perks and go on a percentage of collections basis. If you are considering a place where they very much need dermatologists (sorry, not New York City), you may have some negotiating room and it is worth spending a few thousand dollars to ask a medical contract attorney to go over the contract for you, or even negotiate for you. Don’t overestimate your value, however, because you might negotiate your way right out of a job. The expanding scope of nurse practitioners and physician assistants have taken away much of your indispensability. While there is a shortage of dermatologists in most of the United States, there generally is no shortage of dermatology appointments.
When you start a new job you are not certain about, resist the urge to buy a big house and put down roots right away. You may need to move on if it doesn’t work out. You may want to work a few years, pay down school loans, save a little, and set up your own practice somewhere.
All things considered, these are exciting times and being a board-certified dermatologist is a wonderful place to be in the medical world. I am not at all sure if any of the proposed end-of-the-world health care plans will come true. And let me know if you are one of those New York City residents who struck out for the western frontier. Us fly-over-country folk have got to stick together!
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
. There is some useful material pertaining to this topic on the American Academy of Dermatology website, which I helped develop. This should help you decide whether you want to go solo, small group, large group, VA, or academic practice. These options all have certain advantages and drawbacks.
Your first decision should be where you want to practice geographically, which will determine many of the details of any practice situation. For instance, if you go where there is a shortage of dermatologists, you will be more welcome and more sought after. I will never forget sitting in a hospital break room in New York City after giving grand rounds with a large group of residents, who asked me about practice opportunities. I asked them where they wanted to practice. Every resident – first, second, and third year – indicated they wanted to stay in New York City. I had to laugh to myself. If there are any cities with a surplus of dermatologists, it’s the hip ones: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and so on. If you can find a job there, it will be a “this is what everyone signs” contract situation, and a large part of your pay is the privilege of living in an urban “paradise.”
If you are willing to look further afield, I suggest you start with an old classic, the “Places Rated Almanac: The Classic Guide for Finding Your Best Places to Live in America” (Washington: Places Rated Books, 2007). This is a resource (that needs a new edition) that provides all kinds of details on different areas of the country that you may not have considered, including median income, schools, climate, and livability.
When you know the general area where you would like to settle – and after considering the parents, the in-laws, and the outlaws – remember that the best jobs are not advertised. You should contact all the dermatology, multispeciality, and hospital groups in the area (yes, write them a nice snail mail letter) indicating you are interested, and ask them if they are hiring. Practices are usually interested in a general dermatologist, or perhaps a Mohs surgeon or dermatopathologist, willing to practice general dermatology half time. For example, I know a very nice general dermatology practice in the Midwest that has been looking for the right derm-path/general derm for years. The days of strolling in and setting up an all-Mohs or all-dermpath practice are over, unless you buy out, or become employed by one of the older established specialist groups.
Ask the staff (and former physician employees if you can find them) lots of questions. See if their style of medicine suits you. See if their electronic health record system is fast or a major hindrance. Find out how many extenders you will be responsible for supervising.
And find out if they are considering selling out (selling you) to private equity. Private equity groups are a major new influence on the specialty, run a lot of ads, and hire a lot of graduating dermatologists. They offer more benefits and higher initial salaries. There is no free lunch, however, and these perks must be paid back with future earnings. The private equity groups take 20%-30% of profits “off the top” and your earnings will hit a ceiling at a level that is significantly lower than it would be in a solo practice or dermatology group. They also have long, detailed, ferocious contracts with penalty clauses and noncompetes from all outlets. More numerous advertisements are a negative tip off, but will give you an idea of which markets they think are promising with regard to need and payer mix. See what the private equity group’s private health insurance rates are. If they are significantly greater than Medicare rates, they deserve a second look, though few are. Remember that the senior physician who pitches for them in the lounge doesn’t work for free, but receives a significant bonus for getting you to sign.
If you find a great location, it is time for contract review. The first rule is that no contract is better than who you sign it with. If they are determined to mistreat you, they will – no matter the contract. I advise always having a graceful exit written into the contract specifying severance terms (if any), even if you never need this.
If you are ready to work hard and make more income, you should forgo the perks and go on a percentage of collections basis. If you are considering a place where they very much need dermatologists (sorry, not New York City), you may have some negotiating room and it is worth spending a few thousand dollars to ask a medical contract attorney to go over the contract for you, or even negotiate for you. Don’t overestimate your value, however, because you might negotiate your way right out of a job. The expanding scope of nurse practitioners and physician assistants have taken away much of your indispensability. While there is a shortage of dermatologists in most of the United States, there generally is no shortage of dermatology appointments.
When you start a new job you are not certain about, resist the urge to buy a big house and put down roots right away. You may need to move on if it doesn’t work out. You may want to work a few years, pay down school loans, save a little, and set up your own practice somewhere.
All things considered, these are exciting times and being a board-certified dermatologist is a wonderful place to be in the medical world. I am not at all sure if any of the proposed end-of-the-world health care plans will come true. And let me know if you are one of those New York City residents who struck out for the western frontier. Us fly-over-country folk have got to stick together!
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
. There is some useful material pertaining to this topic on the American Academy of Dermatology website, which I helped develop. This should help you decide whether you want to go solo, small group, large group, VA, or academic practice. These options all have certain advantages and drawbacks.
Your first decision should be where you want to practice geographically, which will determine many of the details of any practice situation. For instance, if you go where there is a shortage of dermatologists, you will be more welcome and more sought after. I will never forget sitting in a hospital break room in New York City after giving grand rounds with a large group of residents, who asked me about practice opportunities. I asked them where they wanted to practice. Every resident – first, second, and third year – indicated they wanted to stay in New York City. I had to laugh to myself. If there are any cities with a surplus of dermatologists, it’s the hip ones: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and so on. If you can find a job there, it will be a “this is what everyone signs” contract situation, and a large part of your pay is the privilege of living in an urban “paradise.”
If you are willing to look further afield, I suggest you start with an old classic, the “Places Rated Almanac: The Classic Guide for Finding Your Best Places to Live in America” (Washington: Places Rated Books, 2007). This is a resource (that needs a new edition) that provides all kinds of details on different areas of the country that you may not have considered, including median income, schools, climate, and livability.
When you know the general area where you would like to settle – and after considering the parents, the in-laws, and the outlaws – remember that the best jobs are not advertised. You should contact all the dermatology, multispeciality, and hospital groups in the area (yes, write them a nice snail mail letter) indicating you are interested, and ask them if they are hiring. Practices are usually interested in a general dermatologist, or perhaps a Mohs surgeon or dermatopathologist, willing to practice general dermatology half time. For example, I know a very nice general dermatology practice in the Midwest that has been looking for the right derm-path/general derm for years. The days of strolling in and setting up an all-Mohs or all-dermpath practice are over, unless you buy out, or become employed by one of the older established specialist groups.
Ask the staff (and former physician employees if you can find them) lots of questions. See if their style of medicine suits you. See if their electronic health record system is fast or a major hindrance. Find out how many extenders you will be responsible for supervising.
And find out if they are considering selling out (selling you) to private equity. Private equity groups are a major new influence on the specialty, run a lot of ads, and hire a lot of graduating dermatologists. They offer more benefits and higher initial salaries. There is no free lunch, however, and these perks must be paid back with future earnings. The private equity groups take 20%-30% of profits “off the top” and your earnings will hit a ceiling at a level that is significantly lower than it would be in a solo practice or dermatology group. They also have long, detailed, ferocious contracts with penalty clauses and noncompetes from all outlets. More numerous advertisements are a negative tip off, but will give you an idea of which markets they think are promising with regard to need and payer mix. See what the private equity group’s private health insurance rates are. If they are significantly greater than Medicare rates, they deserve a second look, though few are. Remember that the senior physician who pitches for them in the lounge doesn’t work for free, but receives a significant bonus for getting you to sign.
If you find a great location, it is time for contract review. The first rule is that no contract is better than who you sign it with. If they are determined to mistreat you, they will – no matter the contract. I advise always having a graceful exit written into the contract specifying severance terms (if any), even if you never need this.
If you are ready to work hard and make more income, you should forgo the perks and go on a percentage of collections basis. If you are considering a place where they very much need dermatologists (sorry, not New York City), you may have some negotiating room and it is worth spending a few thousand dollars to ask a medical contract attorney to go over the contract for you, or even negotiate for you. Don’t overestimate your value, however, because you might negotiate your way right out of a job. The expanding scope of nurse practitioners and physician assistants have taken away much of your indispensability. While there is a shortage of dermatologists in most of the United States, there generally is no shortage of dermatology appointments.
When you start a new job you are not certain about, resist the urge to buy a big house and put down roots right away. You may need to move on if it doesn’t work out. You may want to work a few years, pay down school loans, save a little, and set up your own practice somewhere.
All things considered, these are exciting times and being a board-certified dermatologist is a wonderful place to be in the medical world. I am not at all sure if any of the proposed end-of-the-world health care plans will come true. And let me know if you are one of those New York City residents who struck out for the western frontier. Us fly-over-country folk have got to stick together!
Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
Football for the young
A few weeks ago I was at a Friday-night football game, but not to watch the game. I’ve been there and done that too many times when I used to be the team physician. I was there to listen to my granddaughter drumming in the pep band. And there was a lot of drumming because her high school’s team is having a hot year and outscoring opponents by three and four touchdowns every week.
At half time, the field was swarmed by 45-50 early grade schoolers looking like bobblehead dolls in their oversize helmets and surprisingly professional-appearing miniature football outfits. Under the lights, on the local college’s turf field, they were in football heaven. The pep band got into it and there was more drumming as the few kids who had a clue what football was about were scampering over and around their teammates and opponents who were roughhousing with each other, rolling around on the turf having a grand time, blissfully unimpressed by such trivial concepts as the line of scrimmage or the difference between blocking and tackling or even offense and defense.
Despite all the alarming articles both lay and professional that you and I see, this was an evening on which no one seemed particularly concerned about sports-related concussions. This is class B football in Maine, not a state well known as an incubator of Division I college football players. While there were a few scrawny kids with some speed,
Watching 4- and 5-year-olds in their football uniforms seemed to me to be a rather harmless exercise and certainly a more positive investment in their time on a Friday night than sitting on the couch with an electronic device clutched in their little hands. A recent report in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that my lack of concern has some validity (“Consensus statement on sports-related concussions in youth sports using a modified delphi approach.” JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4006). Eleven experts in sports-related injuries were surveyed with multiple rounds of questionnaires. Their anonymous responses were aggregated and shared with the group after each round until a consensus could be arrived on for each of seven broad questions about sports-related concussions. It is a paper worth reading and like most good literature surveys determined that in many situations more study needs to be done.
Among the many findings that impressed me was the group’s failure to find an “association between repetitive head impact exposure in youth and long-term neurocognitive outcomes.” In addition, “there is little evidence that age at first exposure repetitive head impacts in sports is independently associated with neurodegenerative changes.” The experts also could find “no evidence that growth or development affect the risk of sports-related concussions.”
The problem with youth football is that it is the portal that can lead to college and professional football, in which large bodies are allowed to collide after accelerating at speeds we mortals only can achieve behind the wheel of our motor vehicles. Rules to minimize those collisions do exist, but lax enforcement has failed to prevent their cumulative damage.
Whether the culture of big-time football is going to change to a point at which a conscientious parent could encourage his or her child to play after adolescence remains to be seen. However, the evidence seems to suggest that allowing young children to bang themselves around imitating the big guys seems to be reasonably safe. At least as safe as what kids used to do to each other before we adults invented television and video games.
When my son was 3 or 4 years old, he played on a hockey team he thought was called the Toronto Make-Believes (Maple Leafs). Maybe we should be telling parents it’s safe for their children to play make-believe contact sports. The challenge comes after those kids reach puberty and want to start playing the real thing.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
A few weeks ago I was at a Friday-night football game, but not to watch the game. I’ve been there and done that too many times when I used to be the team physician. I was there to listen to my granddaughter drumming in the pep band. And there was a lot of drumming because her high school’s team is having a hot year and outscoring opponents by three and four touchdowns every week.
At half time, the field was swarmed by 45-50 early grade schoolers looking like bobblehead dolls in their oversize helmets and surprisingly professional-appearing miniature football outfits. Under the lights, on the local college’s turf field, they were in football heaven. The pep band got into it and there was more drumming as the few kids who had a clue what football was about were scampering over and around their teammates and opponents who were roughhousing with each other, rolling around on the turf having a grand time, blissfully unimpressed by such trivial concepts as the line of scrimmage or the difference between blocking and tackling or even offense and defense.
Despite all the alarming articles both lay and professional that you and I see, this was an evening on which no one seemed particularly concerned about sports-related concussions. This is class B football in Maine, not a state well known as an incubator of Division I college football players. While there were a few scrawny kids with some speed,
Watching 4- and 5-year-olds in their football uniforms seemed to me to be a rather harmless exercise and certainly a more positive investment in their time on a Friday night than sitting on the couch with an electronic device clutched in their little hands. A recent report in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that my lack of concern has some validity (“Consensus statement on sports-related concussions in youth sports using a modified delphi approach.” JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4006). Eleven experts in sports-related injuries were surveyed with multiple rounds of questionnaires. Their anonymous responses were aggregated and shared with the group after each round until a consensus could be arrived on for each of seven broad questions about sports-related concussions. It is a paper worth reading and like most good literature surveys determined that in many situations more study needs to be done.
Among the many findings that impressed me was the group’s failure to find an “association between repetitive head impact exposure in youth and long-term neurocognitive outcomes.” In addition, “there is little evidence that age at first exposure repetitive head impacts in sports is independently associated with neurodegenerative changes.” The experts also could find “no evidence that growth or development affect the risk of sports-related concussions.”
The problem with youth football is that it is the portal that can lead to college and professional football, in which large bodies are allowed to collide after accelerating at speeds we mortals only can achieve behind the wheel of our motor vehicles. Rules to minimize those collisions do exist, but lax enforcement has failed to prevent their cumulative damage.
Whether the culture of big-time football is going to change to a point at which a conscientious parent could encourage his or her child to play after adolescence remains to be seen. However, the evidence seems to suggest that allowing young children to bang themselves around imitating the big guys seems to be reasonably safe. At least as safe as what kids used to do to each other before we adults invented television and video games.
When my son was 3 or 4 years old, he played on a hockey team he thought was called the Toronto Make-Believes (Maple Leafs). Maybe we should be telling parents it’s safe for their children to play make-believe contact sports. The challenge comes after those kids reach puberty and want to start playing the real thing.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
A few weeks ago I was at a Friday-night football game, but not to watch the game. I’ve been there and done that too many times when I used to be the team physician. I was there to listen to my granddaughter drumming in the pep band. And there was a lot of drumming because her high school’s team is having a hot year and outscoring opponents by three and four touchdowns every week.
At half time, the field was swarmed by 45-50 early grade schoolers looking like bobblehead dolls in their oversize helmets and surprisingly professional-appearing miniature football outfits. Under the lights, on the local college’s turf field, they were in football heaven. The pep band got into it and there was more drumming as the few kids who had a clue what football was about were scampering over and around their teammates and opponents who were roughhousing with each other, rolling around on the turf having a grand time, blissfully unimpressed by such trivial concepts as the line of scrimmage or the difference between blocking and tackling or even offense and defense.
Despite all the alarming articles both lay and professional that you and I see, this was an evening on which no one seemed particularly concerned about sports-related concussions. This is class B football in Maine, not a state well known as an incubator of Division I college football players. While there were a few scrawny kids with some speed,
Watching 4- and 5-year-olds in their football uniforms seemed to me to be a rather harmless exercise and certainly a more positive investment in their time on a Friday night than sitting on the couch with an electronic device clutched in their little hands. A recent report in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that my lack of concern has some validity (“Consensus statement on sports-related concussions in youth sports using a modified delphi approach.” JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4006). Eleven experts in sports-related injuries were surveyed with multiple rounds of questionnaires. Their anonymous responses were aggregated and shared with the group after each round until a consensus could be arrived on for each of seven broad questions about sports-related concussions. It is a paper worth reading and like most good literature surveys determined that in many situations more study needs to be done.
Among the many findings that impressed me was the group’s failure to find an “association between repetitive head impact exposure in youth and long-term neurocognitive outcomes.” In addition, “there is little evidence that age at first exposure repetitive head impacts in sports is independently associated with neurodegenerative changes.” The experts also could find “no evidence that growth or development affect the risk of sports-related concussions.”
The problem with youth football is that it is the portal that can lead to college and professional football, in which large bodies are allowed to collide after accelerating at speeds we mortals only can achieve behind the wheel of our motor vehicles. Rules to minimize those collisions do exist, but lax enforcement has failed to prevent their cumulative damage.
Whether the culture of big-time football is going to change to a point at which a conscientious parent could encourage his or her child to play after adolescence remains to be seen. However, the evidence seems to suggest that allowing young children to bang themselves around imitating the big guys seems to be reasonably safe. At least as safe as what kids used to do to each other before we adults invented television and video games.
When my son was 3 or 4 years old, he played on a hockey team he thought was called the Toronto Make-Believes (Maple Leafs). Maybe we should be telling parents it’s safe for their children to play make-believe contact sports. The challenge comes after those kids reach puberty and want to start playing the real thing.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Piceatannol: The other potent antioxidant in grapes and wine
Present in grape skins, passion fruit, and wine among several other plants and their derivatives, piceatannol is a natural stilbene, as well as an analogue of the much-studied antioxidant resveratrol. Similarly, piceatannol is thought to provide robust antioxidant and other salutary benefits.1,2
Two decades ago, the hydroxystilbenes piceatannol and transresveratrol were found, in a study of the antioxidant potential of natural products, to hinder carcinogen-induced preneoplastic lesion development in a murine mammary gland organ culture model.3 Piceatannol is naturally present in various plants and is a primary active ingredient in several. It is known to exhibit a wide range of biologic activities, including antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer functions. Native to southern and southeastern Asia, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (rose myrtle, which is a member of the Myrtaceae family), which has been utilized in traditional medicine in China, Malaysia, and Vietnam for myriad indications including wound healing, contains piceatannol as an active ingredient.4
The reported cutaneous benefits of piceatannol include promotion of collagen synthesis, suppression of melanin production, induction of the antioxidant glutathione, and the destruction of reactive oxygen species.5
Antimelanogenic activity
In 2007, Yokozawa and Kim looked into the capacity of piceatannol, given its antioxidant activities, to suppress melanogenesis. This ability was tested using the B16F10 melanoma culture system, and piceatannol was found to have a potent antityrosinase activity – stronger than kojic acid and resveratrol. Melanin content was also down-regulated by piceatannol. In addition, the researchers determined that piceatannol inhibited reactive oxygen species production, which improved the ratio of glutathione to oxidized glutathione. They concluded that the observed antimelanogenic activities of piceatannol could be attributed to its dynamic antioxidant qualities.6
Four years later, Matsui et al. ascertained that piceatannol (3,4,3’,5’-tetrahydroxy-trans-stilbene) is present in copious supply in the seeds of Passiflora edulis (passion fruit) and that this constituent of the fruit largely accounts for its antimelanogenic activities, as well as its promotion of collagen production.7
Anti-inflammatory activity
In 2014, Liu et al. used female HR-1 hairless mice in a study to shed light on the molecular mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory activity of topically applied piceatannol in vivo. Mice, either pretreated with piceatannol or not, were topically treated with 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA), and pretreatment was found to yield diminished TPA-induced cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). This occurred through the suppression of NF-kappa-B and AP-1 activation as a result of hindering IKK-beta activity and phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinases.8
Photoprotection
Maruki-Uchida et al. studied the effects of the antioxidants piceatannol and its dimer scirpusin B, which is found in passion fruit, on human keratinocytes. In this 2013 study, they found that piceatannol dose-dependently up-regulated glutathione levels. In addition, piceatannol pretreatment blocked UVB-induced reactive oxygen species development. Pretreatment with piceatannol also reduced matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity in a nonirradiated medium of fibroblasts. The investigators concluded that piceatannol and piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract warrant attention as possible antiphotoaging cosmetic agents.9
With use of cultured normal human epidermal keratinocytes, Shiratake et al. in 2015 screened more than 50 plant extracts for ingredients that hinder UVB-induced damage. They identified the fruit R. tomentosa as the strongest inhibitor, with its primary component, piceatannol, demonstrating protective activities against UVB. Piceatannol decreased UVB-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer synthesis, diminished prostaglandin E2 secretion, and promoted the cellular enzyme activity of DNA polymerases. The investigators concluded that rose myrtle extracts and piceatannol are potential photoprotective agents.10
Dry skin
In a 2018 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial Maruki-Uchida et al. assessed the effects of passion fruit seed extract on the skin of 32 healthy Japanese women (aged 35-54 years). Over an 8-week period, the subjects, all with dry skin, received either 5 mg of piceatannol (derived from passion fruit seed extract) or a dextrin placebo. Significant increases in cutaneous moisture content were noted in the subjects who consumed passion fruit after 4 and 8 weeks, compared with baseline and with the placebo group. Questionnaire results also indicated that perspiration and fatigue significantly decreased in the passion fruit group as compared with the placebo group. The researchers concluded that consumption of piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract can ameliorate dry skin and diminish fatigue.5
Conclusion
Although it gets much less attention than the related antioxidant resveratrol, piceatannol is hardly an insignificant bioactive compound. There is increasing evidence that suggests its potency as an antioxidant, as well as a potentially useful ingredient in skincare, particularly in addressing photoaging and dry skin. Much more research is necessary, of course, to determine how substantial a role this stilbene can play in providing skin protection and treatment.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Phytother Res. 2014 Nov;28(11):1581-8.
2. Biogerontology. 2017 Aug;18(4):499-516.
3. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 1998 Apr;1(1):35-46.
4. Biomolecules. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.3390/biom9020076.
5. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2018;64(1):75-80.
6. Biol Pharm Bull. 2007 Nov;30(11):2007-11.
7. J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Oct 27;58(20):11112-8.
8. Inflamm Res. 2014 Dec;63(12):1013-21.
9. Biol Pharm Bull. 2013;36(5):845-9.
10. Mol Med Rep. 2015 Oct;12(4):5857-64.
Present in grape skins, passion fruit, and wine among several other plants and their derivatives, piceatannol is a natural stilbene, as well as an analogue of the much-studied antioxidant resveratrol. Similarly, piceatannol is thought to provide robust antioxidant and other salutary benefits.1,2
Two decades ago, the hydroxystilbenes piceatannol and transresveratrol were found, in a study of the antioxidant potential of natural products, to hinder carcinogen-induced preneoplastic lesion development in a murine mammary gland organ culture model.3 Piceatannol is naturally present in various plants and is a primary active ingredient in several. It is known to exhibit a wide range of biologic activities, including antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer functions. Native to southern and southeastern Asia, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (rose myrtle, which is a member of the Myrtaceae family), which has been utilized in traditional medicine in China, Malaysia, and Vietnam for myriad indications including wound healing, contains piceatannol as an active ingredient.4
The reported cutaneous benefits of piceatannol include promotion of collagen synthesis, suppression of melanin production, induction of the antioxidant glutathione, and the destruction of reactive oxygen species.5
Antimelanogenic activity
In 2007, Yokozawa and Kim looked into the capacity of piceatannol, given its antioxidant activities, to suppress melanogenesis. This ability was tested using the B16F10 melanoma culture system, and piceatannol was found to have a potent antityrosinase activity – stronger than kojic acid and resveratrol. Melanin content was also down-regulated by piceatannol. In addition, the researchers determined that piceatannol inhibited reactive oxygen species production, which improved the ratio of glutathione to oxidized glutathione. They concluded that the observed antimelanogenic activities of piceatannol could be attributed to its dynamic antioxidant qualities.6
Four years later, Matsui et al. ascertained that piceatannol (3,4,3’,5’-tetrahydroxy-trans-stilbene) is present in copious supply in the seeds of Passiflora edulis (passion fruit) and that this constituent of the fruit largely accounts for its antimelanogenic activities, as well as its promotion of collagen production.7
Anti-inflammatory activity
In 2014, Liu et al. used female HR-1 hairless mice in a study to shed light on the molecular mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory activity of topically applied piceatannol in vivo. Mice, either pretreated with piceatannol or not, were topically treated with 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA), and pretreatment was found to yield diminished TPA-induced cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). This occurred through the suppression of NF-kappa-B and AP-1 activation as a result of hindering IKK-beta activity and phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinases.8
Photoprotection
Maruki-Uchida et al. studied the effects of the antioxidants piceatannol and its dimer scirpusin B, which is found in passion fruit, on human keratinocytes. In this 2013 study, they found that piceatannol dose-dependently up-regulated glutathione levels. In addition, piceatannol pretreatment blocked UVB-induced reactive oxygen species development. Pretreatment with piceatannol also reduced matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity in a nonirradiated medium of fibroblasts. The investigators concluded that piceatannol and piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract warrant attention as possible antiphotoaging cosmetic agents.9
With use of cultured normal human epidermal keratinocytes, Shiratake et al. in 2015 screened more than 50 plant extracts for ingredients that hinder UVB-induced damage. They identified the fruit R. tomentosa as the strongest inhibitor, with its primary component, piceatannol, demonstrating protective activities against UVB. Piceatannol decreased UVB-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer synthesis, diminished prostaglandin E2 secretion, and promoted the cellular enzyme activity of DNA polymerases. The investigators concluded that rose myrtle extracts and piceatannol are potential photoprotective agents.10
Dry skin
In a 2018 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial Maruki-Uchida et al. assessed the effects of passion fruit seed extract on the skin of 32 healthy Japanese women (aged 35-54 years). Over an 8-week period, the subjects, all with dry skin, received either 5 mg of piceatannol (derived from passion fruit seed extract) or a dextrin placebo. Significant increases in cutaneous moisture content were noted in the subjects who consumed passion fruit after 4 and 8 weeks, compared with baseline and with the placebo group. Questionnaire results also indicated that perspiration and fatigue significantly decreased in the passion fruit group as compared with the placebo group. The researchers concluded that consumption of piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract can ameliorate dry skin and diminish fatigue.5
Conclusion
Although it gets much less attention than the related antioxidant resveratrol, piceatannol is hardly an insignificant bioactive compound. There is increasing evidence that suggests its potency as an antioxidant, as well as a potentially useful ingredient in skincare, particularly in addressing photoaging and dry skin. Much more research is necessary, of course, to determine how substantial a role this stilbene can play in providing skin protection and treatment.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Phytother Res. 2014 Nov;28(11):1581-8.
2. Biogerontology. 2017 Aug;18(4):499-516.
3. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 1998 Apr;1(1):35-46.
4. Biomolecules. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.3390/biom9020076.
5. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2018;64(1):75-80.
6. Biol Pharm Bull. 2007 Nov;30(11):2007-11.
7. J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Oct 27;58(20):11112-8.
8. Inflamm Res. 2014 Dec;63(12):1013-21.
9. Biol Pharm Bull. 2013;36(5):845-9.
10. Mol Med Rep. 2015 Oct;12(4):5857-64.
Present in grape skins, passion fruit, and wine among several other plants and their derivatives, piceatannol is a natural stilbene, as well as an analogue of the much-studied antioxidant resveratrol. Similarly, piceatannol is thought to provide robust antioxidant and other salutary benefits.1,2
Two decades ago, the hydroxystilbenes piceatannol and transresveratrol were found, in a study of the antioxidant potential of natural products, to hinder carcinogen-induced preneoplastic lesion development in a murine mammary gland organ culture model.3 Piceatannol is naturally present in various plants and is a primary active ingredient in several. It is known to exhibit a wide range of biologic activities, including antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer functions. Native to southern and southeastern Asia, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (rose myrtle, which is a member of the Myrtaceae family), which has been utilized in traditional medicine in China, Malaysia, and Vietnam for myriad indications including wound healing, contains piceatannol as an active ingredient.4
The reported cutaneous benefits of piceatannol include promotion of collagen synthesis, suppression of melanin production, induction of the antioxidant glutathione, and the destruction of reactive oxygen species.5
Antimelanogenic activity
In 2007, Yokozawa and Kim looked into the capacity of piceatannol, given its antioxidant activities, to suppress melanogenesis. This ability was tested using the B16F10 melanoma culture system, and piceatannol was found to have a potent antityrosinase activity – stronger than kojic acid and resveratrol. Melanin content was also down-regulated by piceatannol. In addition, the researchers determined that piceatannol inhibited reactive oxygen species production, which improved the ratio of glutathione to oxidized glutathione. They concluded that the observed antimelanogenic activities of piceatannol could be attributed to its dynamic antioxidant qualities.6
Four years later, Matsui et al. ascertained that piceatannol (3,4,3’,5’-tetrahydroxy-trans-stilbene) is present in copious supply in the seeds of Passiflora edulis (passion fruit) and that this constituent of the fruit largely accounts for its antimelanogenic activities, as well as its promotion of collagen production.7
Anti-inflammatory activity
In 2014, Liu et al. used female HR-1 hairless mice in a study to shed light on the molecular mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory activity of topically applied piceatannol in vivo. Mice, either pretreated with piceatannol or not, were topically treated with 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA), and pretreatment was found to yield diminished TPA-induced cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). This occurred through the suppression of NF-kappa-B and AP-1 activation as a result of hindering IKK-beta activity and phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinases.8
Photoprotection
Maruki-Uchida et al. studied the effects of the antioxidants piceatannol and its dimer scirpusin B, which is found in passion fruit, on human keratinocytes. In this 2013 study, they found that piceatannol dose-dependently up-regulated glutathione levels. In addition, piceatannol pretreatment blocked UVB-induced reactive oxygen species development. Pretreatment with piceatannol also reduced matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity in a nonirradiated medium of fibroblasts. The investigators concluded that piceatannol and piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract warrant attention as possible antiphotoaging cosmetic agents.9
With use of cultured normal human epidermal keratinocytes, Shiratake et al. in 2015 screened more than 50 plant extracts for ingredients that hinder UVB-induced damage. They identified the fruit R. tomentosa as the strongest inhibitor, with its primary component, piceatannol, demonstrating protective activities against UVB. Piceatannol decreased UVB-induced cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer synthesis, diminished prostaglandin E2 secretion, and promoted the cellular enzyme activity of DNA polymerases. The investigators concluded that rose myrtle extracts and piceatannol are potential photoprotective agents.10
Dry skin
In a 2018 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial Maruki-Uchida et al. assessed the effects of passion fruit seed extract on the skin of 32 healthy Japanese women (aged 35-54 years). Over an 8-week period, the subjects, all with dry skin, received either 5 mg of piceatannol (derived from passion fruit seed extract) or a dextrin placebo. Significant increases in cutaneous moisture content were noted in the subjects who consumed passion fruit after 4 and 8 weeks, compared with baseline and with the placebo group. Questionnaire results also indicated that perspiration and fatigue significantly decreased in the passion fruit group as compared with the placebo group. The researchers concluded that consumption of piceatannol-rich passion fruit seed extract can ameliorate dry skin and diminish fatigue.5
Conclusion
Although it gets much less attention than the related antioxidant resveratrol, piceatannol is hardly an insignificant bioactive compound. There is increasing evidence that suggests its potency as an antioxidant, as well as a potentially useful ingredient in skincare, particularly in addressing photoaging and dry skin. Much more research is necessary, of course, to determine how substantial a role this stilbene can play in providing skin protection and treatment.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann wrote two textbooks, “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Phytother Res. 2014 Nov;28(11):1581-8.
2. Biogerontology. 2017 Aug;18(4):499-516.
3. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 1998 Apr;1(1):35-46.
4. Biomolecules. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.3390/biom9020076.
5. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2018;64(1):75-80.
6. Biol Pharm Bull. 2007 Nov;30(11):2007-11.
7. J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Oct 27;58(20):11112-8.
8. Inflamm Res. 2014 Dec;63(12):1013-21.
9. Biol Pharm Bull. 2013;36(5):845-9.
10. Mol Med Rep. 2015 Oct;12(4):5857-64.
Lay press stories about research: Putting them into perspective for patients
I recently had an unusual patient call. A woman I’ve seen for many years for migraines called to tell me her son was being hospitalized for appendicitis. He was scheduled for surgery in the morning.
She called because she’d recently seen a news report about how people without an appendix may have a higher rate of Parkinson’s disease as they age. She was, understandably, concerned about the long-term risks the procedure could pose.
On the surface, as a medical professional, the call sounds frivolous and silly. The risks of untreated acute appendicitis, such as peritonitis and death, are pretty well documented. Surgery offers the best possibility for a cure without recurrence. Compared with the long-term, uncertain, risk of Parkinson’s disease, the benefit-to-risk ratio and options are pretty obvious.
The question of the GI tract’s involvement in neurologic diseases is a legitimate one that needs to be answered. It may provide new insight into their causes and potential treatments. The research she brought up raises some interesting points.
But that doesn’t mean there should be any delay in treating something as easily cured – and potentially serious – as acute appendicitis.
My patient called to ask questions, and I have no issue with that. To someone with no medical training, it’s a legitimate concern. But not everyone will call to ask.
This is a hazard of early stages of medical research making it into the lay press. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it’s too early to tell either way. We have years of training to help us recognize the uncertainties of preliminary data, but the general public doesn’t. Stories like this create interest and raise questions in the medical literature and fear and anxiety in the lay press.
I’m a strong supporter of freedom of the press, and certainly they have every right to air or publish such stories. But they should also be put in perspective at the beginning, not the bottom, and make it clear the findings are far from proven.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I recently had an unusual patient call. A woman I’ve seen for many years for migraines called to tell me her son was being hospitalized for appendicitis. He was scheduled for surgery in the morning.
She called because she’d recently seen a news report about how people without an appendix may have a higher rate of Parkinson’s disease as they age. She was, understandably, concerned about the long-term risks the procedure could pose.
On the surface, as a medical professional, the call sounds frivolous and silly. The risks of untreated acute appendicitis, such as peritonitis and death, are pretty well documented. Surgery offers the best possibility for a cure without recurrence. Compared with the long-term, uncertain, risk of Parkinson’s disease, the benefit-to-risk ratio and options are pretty obvious.
The question of the GI tract’s involvement in neurologic diseases is a legitimate one that needs to be answered. It may provide new insight into their causes and potential treatments. The research she brought up raises some interesting points.
But that doesn’t mean there should be any delay in treating something as easily cured – and potentially serious – as acute appendicitis.
My patient called to ask questions, and I have no issue with that. To someone with no medical training, it’s a legitimate concern. But not everyone will call to ask.
This is a hazard of early stages of medical research making it into the lay press. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it’s too early to tell either way. We have years of training to help us recognize the uncertainties of preliminary data, but the general public doesn’t. Stories like this create interest and raise questions in the medical literature and fear and anxiety in the lay press.
I’m a strong supporter of freedom of the press, and certainly they have every right to air or publish such stories. But they should also be put in perspective at the beginning, not the bottom, and make it clear the findings are far from proven.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I recently had an unusual patient call. A woman I’ve seen for many years for migraines called to tell me her son was being hospitalized for appendicitis. He was scheduled for surgery in the morning.
She called because she’d recently seen a news report about how people without an appendix may have a higher rate of Parkinson’s disease as they age. She was, understandably, concerned about the long-term risks the procedure could pose.
On the surface, as a medical professional, the call sounds frivolous and silly. The risks of untreated acute appendicitis, such as peritonitis and death, are pretty well documented. Surgery offers the best possibility for a cure without recurrence. Compared with the long-term, uncertain, risk of Parkinson’s disease, the benefit-to-risk ratio and options are pretty obvious.
The question of the GI tract’s involvement in neurologic diseases is a legitimate one that needs to be answered. It may provide new insight into their causes and potential treatments. The research she brought up raises some interesting points.
But that doesn’t mean there should be any delay in treating something as easily cured – and potentially serious – as acute appendicitis.
My patient called to ask questions, and I have no issue with that. To someone with no medical training, it’s a legitimate concern. But not everyone will call to ask.
This is a hazard of early stages of medical research making it into the lay press. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it’s too early to tell either way. We have years of training to help us recognize the uncertainties of preliminary data, but the general public doesn’t. Stories like this create interest and raise questions in the medical literature and fear and anxiety in the lay press.
I’m a strong supporter of freedom of the press, and certainly they have every right to air or publish such stories. But they should also be put in perspective at the beginning, not the bottom, and make it clear the findings are far from proven.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
‘Tis the season to reflect and take stock
‘Tis the season to reflect and take stock: Maybe you had a baby, or learned a new procedure, or bought a Tesla? Of course, you made (loads of?) money and treated many patients. Imagine if I asked you this in person, what would you reply? And what made you most proud? I’d tell you this story.
Last week I saw a 50-something-year-old woman for her annual skin screening. She asked if I remembered her mother, who was also my patient. Squinting through my dermatoscope at the nevi on her back, I tried to recall. “Yes, I think so.” (Actually, I was unsure.)
“Well she passed away last week from breast cancer,” she said.
“Oh, I’m sorry to hear that,” I replied.
She added: “Yes, yet she lived much longer than we thought. I want you to know we believe it was in large part because of you.”
I stopped and wheeled around to face her. How could that possibly be true? I had only treated her for a simple skin cancer. She explained that I had seen her mom about a year ago and cut out a skin cancer on her face. Her mom was afraid of needles and of surgery. Apparently when she asked me if it would hurt, I replied: “Well, most patients, yes, but not you.” Pausing, I added: “Because you’re a tough old bird.” She laughed. Apparently that warmth I conveyed and display of confidence in her was just what she needed at that moment. She didn’t flinch.
Not long after, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. When given the news with her children present, she replied, “well, I’ll just fight it. I’m a tough old bird.” It was just what they needed in that moment. “I’m a tough old bird” became their rally cry. Apparently with each stage, surgery, radiation, chemo, they fell back on it. Her son had “Tough Old Bird” made into a magnet and prominently posted on the refrigerator door where she would see it every day.
Sadly, she ultimately succumbed to her disease, but did so later than had been expected and having fought all the way. My patient teared up and asked if she could give me a hug on behalf of her mom. “Thank you, Dr. Benabio. We won’t forget what you did for her.”
I did recall her now, remembering even what exam room she was in when I said it. Yet, I had no idea what I had done. I wonder how many others there were. Of the many things you accomplished this year, try to recall these achievements. Not the psoriasis cleared, or tumor extirpated, or new homes bought. But the comfort and care you brought to the mother with worry, the father with anguish, the daughter with anxieties, or the son with misdeeds.
It is a beautiful, hard, and joyous life we have as physicians, for our “happiness lies in the absorption in some vocation which satisfies the soul; that we are here to add what we can to, not get what we can from life.”* How fortunate are we. Take stock.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Reference
*William Osler, “Doctor and Nurse.” Address given at Training School for Nurses at Johns Hopkins Hospital, June 4, 1891
‘Tis the season to reflect and take stock: Maybe you had a baby, or learned a new procedure, or bought a Tesla? Of course, you made (loads of?) money and treated many patients. Imagine if I asked you this in person, what would you reply? And what made you most proud? I’d tell you this story.
Last week I saw a 50-something-year-old woman for her annual skin screening. She asked if I remembered her mother, who was also my patient. Squinting through my dermatoscope at the nevi on her back, I tried to recall. “Yes, I think so.” (Actually, I was unsure.)
“Well she passed away last week from breast cancer,” she said.
“Oh, I’m sorry to hear that,” I replied.
She added: “Yes, yet she lived much longer than we thought. I want you to know we believe it was in large part because of you.”
I stopped and wheeled around to face her. How could that possibly be true? I had only treated her for a simple skin cancer. She explained that I had seen her mom about a year ago and cut out a skin cancer on her face. Her mom was afraid of needles and of surgery. Apparently when she asked me if it would hurt, I replied: “Well, most patients, yes, but not you.” Pausing, I added: “Because you’re a tough old bird.” She laughed. Apparently that warmth I conveyed and display of confidence in her was just what she needed at that moment. She didn’t flinch.
Not long after, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. When given the news with her children present, she replied, “well, I’ll just fight it. I’m a tough old bird.” It was just what they needed in that moment. “I’m a tough old bird” became their rally cry. Apparently with each stage, surgery, radiation, chemo, they fell back on it. Her son had “Tough Old Bird” made into a magnet and prominently posted on the refrigerator door where she would see it every day.
Sadly, she ultimately succumbed to her disease, but did so later than had been expected and having fought all the way. My patient teared up and asked if she could give me a hug on behalf of her mom. “Thank you, Dr. Benabio. We won’t forget what you did for her.”
I did recall her now, remembering even what exam room she was in when I said it. Yet, I had no idea what I had done. I wonder how many others there were. Of the many things you accomplished this year, try to recall these achievements. Not the psoriasis cleared, or tumor extirpated, or new homes bought. But the comfort and care you brought to the mother with worry, the father with anguish, the daughter with anxieties, or the son with misdeeds.
It is a beautiful, hard, and joyous life we have as physicians, for our “happiness lies in the absorption in some vocation which satisfies the soul; that we are here to add what we can to, not get what we can from life.”* How fortunate are we. Take stock.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Reference
*William Osler, “Doctor and Nurse.” Address given at Training School for Nurses at Johns Hopkins Hospital, June 4, 1891
‘Tis the season to reflect and take stock: Maybe you had a baby, or learned a new procedure, or bought a Tesla? Of course, you made (loads of?) money and treated many patients. Imagine if I asked you this in person, what would you reply? And what made you most proud? I’d tell you this story.
Last week I saw a 50-something-year-old woman for her annual skin screening. She asked if I remembered her mother, who was also my patient. Squinting through my dermatoscope at the nevi on her back, I tried to recall. “Yes, I think so.” (Actually, I was unsure.)
“Well she passed away last week from breast cancer,” she said.
“Oh, I’m sorry to hear that,” I replied.
She added: “Yes, yet she lived much longer than we thought. I want you to know we believe it was in large part because of you.”
I stopped and wheeled around to face her. How could that possibly be true? I had only treated her for a simple skin cancer. She explained that I had seen her mom about a year ago and cut out a skin cancer on her face. Her mom was afraid of needles and of surgery. Apparently when she asked me if it would hurt, I replied: “Well, most patients, yes, but not you.” Pausing, I added: “Because you’re a tough old bird.” She laughed. Apparently that warmth I conveyed and display of confidence in her was just what she needed at that moment. She didn’t flinch.
Not long after, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. When given the news with her children present, she replied, “well, I’ll just fight it. I’m a tough old bird.” It was just what they needed in that moment. “I’m a tough old bird” became their rally cry. Apparently with each stage, surgery, radiation, chemo, they fell back on it. Her son had “Tough Old Bird” made into a magnet and prominently posted on the refrigerator door where she would see it every day.
Sadly, she ultimately succumbed to her disease, but did so later than had been expected and having fought all the way. My patient teared up and asked if she could give me a hug on behalf of her mom. “Thank you, Dr. Benabio. We won’t forget what you did for her.”
I did recall her now, remembering even what exam room she was in when I said it. Yet, I had no idea what I had done. I wonder how many others there were. Of the many things you accomplished this year, try to recall these achievements. Not the psoriasis cleared, or tumor extirpated, or new homes bought. But the comfort and care you brought to the mother with worry, the father with anguish, the daughter with anxieties, or the son with misdeeds.
It is a beautiful, hard, and joyous life we have as physicians, for our “happiness lies in the absorption in some vocation which satisfies the soul; that we are here to add what we can to, not get what we can from life.”* How fortunate are we. Take stock.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Reference
*William Osler, “Doctor and Nurse.” Address given at Training School for Nurses at Johns Hopkins Hospital, June 4, 1891
Office of Inspector General
Question: Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
A. Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a federal agency of Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that investigates statutory violations of health care fraud and abuse.
B. The three main legal minefields for physicians are false claims, kickbacks, and self-referrals.
C. Jail terms are part of the penalties provided by law.
D. OIG is also responsible for excluding violators from participating in Medicare/Medicaid programs, as well as curtailing a physician’s license to practice.
E. A private citizen can file a qui tam lawsuit against an errant practitioner or health care entity for fraud and abuse.
Answer: D. Health care fraud, waste, and abuse consume some 10% of federal health expenditures despite well-established laws that attempt to prevent and reduce such losses. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General, as well as the Department of Justice and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are charged with enforcing these and other laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Their web pages, referenced throughout this article, contain a wealth of information for the practitioner.
The term “Office of Inspector General” (OIG) refers to the oversight division of a federal or state agency charged with identifying and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within that department or agency. There are currently 73 separate federal offices of inspectors general, which employ armed and unarmed criminal investigators, auditors, forensic auditors called “audigators,” and a variety of other specialists. An Act of Congress in 1976 established the first OIG under HHS. Besides being the first, HHS-OIG is also the largest, with a staff of approximately 1,600. A majority of resources goes toward the oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs under other HHS institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.1
HHS-OIG has the authority to seek civil monetary penalties, assessments, and exclusion against an individual or entity based on a wide variety of prohibited conduct affecting federal health care programs. Stiff penalties are regularly assessed against violators, and jail terms are not uncommon; however, it has no direct jurisdictions over physician licensure or nonfederal programs. The government maintains a pictorial list of its most wanted health care fugitives2 and provides an excellent set of Physician Education Training Materials on its website.3
False Claims Act (FCA)
In the health care arena, violation of FCA (31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733) is the foremost infraction. False claims by physicians can include billing for noncovered services such as experimental treatments, double billing, billing the government as the primary payer, or regularly waiving deductibles and copayments, as well as quality of care issues and unnecessary services. Wrongdoing also includes knowingly using another patient’s name for purposes of, say, federal drug coverage, billing for no-shows, and misrepresenting the diagnosis to justify services, as well as other claims. In the modern doctor’s office, the EMR enables easy check-offs on a preprinted form as documentation of actual work done. However, fraud is implicated if the information is deliberately misleading such as for purposes of upcoding. Importantly, physicians are liable for the actions of their office staff, so it is prudent to oversee and supervise all such activities. Naturally, one should document all claims that are sent and know the rules for allowable and excluded services.
FCA is an old law that was first enacted in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false. Intent to defraud is not a required element but knowing or showing reckless disregard of the truth is. However, an error that is negligently committed is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim, as well as possible imprisonment and criminal fines. A so-called whistle-blower may file a lawsuit on behalf of the government and is entitled to a percentage of any recoveries. Whistle-blowers may be current or ex-business partners, hospital or office staff, patients, or competitors. The fact that a claim results from a kickback or is made in violation of the Stark law (discussed below) may also render it fraudulent, thus creating additional liability under FCA.
HHS-OIG, as well as the Department of Justice, discloses named cases of statutory violations on their websites. A few random 2019 examples include a New York licensed doctor was convicted of nine counts in connection with Oxycodone and Fentanyl diversion scheme; a Newton, Mass., geriatrician agreed to pay $680,000 to resolve allegations that he violated the False Claims Act by submitting inflated claims to Medicare and the Massachusetts Medicaid program (MassHealth) for care rendered to nursing home patients; and two Clermont, Fla., ophthalmologists agreed to pay a combined total of $157,312.32 to resolve allegations that they violated FCA by knowingly billing the government for mutually exclusive eyelid repair surgeries.
Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)
AKS (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b[b]) is a criminal law that prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by federal health care programs. Remuneration includes anything of value and can take many forms besides cash, such as free rent, lavish travel, and excessive compensation for medical directorships or consultancies. Rewarding a referral source may be acceptable in some industries, but is a crime in federal health care programs.
Moreover, the statute covers both the payers of kickbacks (those who offer or pay remuneration) and the recipients of kickbacks. Each party’s intent is a key element of their liability under AKS. Physicians who pay or accept kickbacks face penalties of up to $50,000 per kickback plus three times the amount of the remuneration and criminal prosecution. As an example, a Tulsa, Okla., doctor earlier this year agreed to pay the government $84,666.42 for allegedly accepting illegal kickback payments from a pharmacy, and in another case, a marketer agreed to pay nearly $340,000 for receiving kickbacks in exchange for prescription referrals.
A physician is an attractive target for kickback schemes. The kickback prohibition applies to all sources, even patients. For example, where the Medicare and Medicaid programs require patients to be responsible for copays for services, the health care provider is generally required to collect that money from the patients. Advertising the forgiveness of copayments or routinely waiving these copays would violate AKS. However, one may waive a copayment when a patient cannot afford to pay one or is uninsured. AKS also imposes civil monetary penalties on physicians who offer remuneration to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to influence them to use their services. Note that the government does not need to prove patient harm or financial loss to show that a violation has occurred, and physicians can be guilty even if they rendered services that are medically necessary.
There are so-called safe harbors that protect certain payment and business practices from running afoul of AKS. The rules and requirements are complex, and require full understanding and strict adherence.4
Physician Self-Referral Law
The Physician Self-Referral Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn), commonly referred to as the Stark law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both ownership/investment interests and compensation arrangements. A partial list of “designated health services” includes services related to clinical laboratory, physical therapy, radiology, parenteral and enteral supplies, prosthetic devices and supplies, home health care outpatient prescription drugs, and inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This list is not meant to be an exhaustive one.
Stark is a strict liability statute, which means proof of specific intent to violate the law is not required. The law prohibits the submission, or causing the submission, of claims in violation of the law’s restrictions on referrals. Penalties for physicians who violate the Stark law include fines, as well as exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Like AKS, Stark law features its own safe harbors.
Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some materials may have been discussed in earlier columns. For additional information, readers may contact the author at siang@hawaii.edu.
References
1. HHS Office of Inspector General. About OIG. https://oig.hhs.gov/about-oig/about-us/index.asp
2. HHS Office of Inspector General. OIG most wanted fugitives.
3. HHS Office of Inspector General. “Physician education training materials.” A roadmap for new physicians: Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
4. HHS Office of Inspector General. Safe harbor regulations.
Question: Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
A. Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a federal agency of Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that investigates statutory violations of health care fraud and abuse.
B. The three main legal minefields for physicians are false claims, kickbacks, and self-referrals.
C. Jail terms are part of the penalties provided by law.
D. OIG is also responsible for excluding violators from participating in Medicare/Medicaid programs, as well as curtailing a physician’s license to practice.
E. A private citizen can file a qui tam lawsuit against an errant practitioner or health care entity for fraud and abuse.
Answer: D. Health care fraud, waste, and abuse consume some 10% of federal health expenditures despite well-established laws that attempt to prevent and reduce such losses. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General, as well as the Department of Justice and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are charged with enforcing these and other laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Their web pages, referenced throughout this article, contain a wealth of information for the practitioner.
The term “Office of Inspector General” (OIG) refers to the oversight division of a federal or state agency charged with identifying and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within that department or agency. There are currently 73 separate federal offices of inspectors general, which employ armed and unarmed criminal investigators, auditors, forensic auditors called “audigators,” and a variety of other specialists. An Act of Congress in 1976 established the first OIG under HHS. Besides being the first, HHS-OIG is also the largest, with a staff of approximately 1,600. A majority of resources goes toward the oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs under other HHS institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.1
HHS-OIG has the authority to seek civil monetary penalties, assessments, and exclusion against an individual or entity based on a wide variety of prohibited conduct affecting federal health care programs. Stiff penalties are regularly assessed against violators, and jail terms are not uncommon; however, it has no direct jurisdictions over physician licensure or nonfederal programs. The government maintains a pictorial list of its most wanted health care fugitives2 and provides an excellent set of Physician Education Training Materials on its website.3
False Claims Act (FCA)
In the health care arena, violation of FCA (31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733) is the foremost infraction. False claims by physicians can include billing for noncovered services such as experimental treatments, double billing, billing the government as the primary payer, or regularly waiving deductibles and copayments, as well as quality of care issues and unnecessary services. Wrongdoing also includes knowingly using another patient’s name for purposes of, say, federal drug coverage, billing for no-shows, and misrepresenting the diagnosis to justify services, as well as other claims. In the modern doctor’s office, the EMR enables easy check-offs on a preprinted form as documentation of actual work done. However, fraud is implicated if the information is deliberately misleading such as for purposes of upcoding. Importantly, physicians are liable for the actions of their office staff, so it is prudent to oversee and supervise all such activities. Naturally, one should document all claims that are sent and know the rules for allowable and excluded services.
FCA is an old law that was first enacted in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false. Intent to defraud is not a required element but knowing or showing reckless disregard of the truth is. However, an error that is negligently committed is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim, as well as possible imprisonment and criminal fines. A so-called whistle-blower may file a lawsuit on behalf of the government and is entitled to a percentage of any recoveries. Whistle-blowers may be current or ex-business partners, hospital or office staff, patients, or competitors. The fact that a claim results from a kickback or is made in violation of the Stark law (discussed below) may also render it fraudulent, thus creating additional liability under FCA.
HHS-OIG, as well as the Department of Justice, discloses named cases of statutory violations on their websites. A few random 2019 examples include a New York licensed doctor was convicted of nine counts in connection with Oxycodone and Fentanyl diversion scheme; a Newton, Mass., geriatrician agreed to pay $680,000 to resolve allegations that he violated the False Claims Act by submitting inflated claims to Medicare and the Massachusetts Medicaid program (MassHealth) for care rendered to nursing home patients; and two Clermont, Fla., ophthalmologists agreed to pay a combined total of $157,312.32 to resolve allegations that they violated FCA by knowingly billing the government for mutually exclusive eyelid repair surgeries.
Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)
AKS (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b[b]) is a criminal law that prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by federal health care programs. Remuneration includes anything of value and can take many forms besides cash, such as free rent, lavish travel, and excessive compensation for medical directorships or consultancies. Rewarding a referral source may be acceptable in some industries, but is a crime in federal health care programs.
Moreover, the statute covers both the payers of kickbacks (those who offer or pay remuneration) and the recipients of kickbacks. Each party’s intent is a key element of their liability under AKS. Physicians who pay or accept kickbacks face penalties of up to $50,000 per kickback plus three times the amount of the remuneration and criminal prosecution. As an example, a Tulsa, Okla., doctor earlier this year agreed to pay the government $84,666.42 for allegedly accepting illegal kickback payments from a pharmacy, and in another case, a marketer agreed to pay nearly $340,000 for receiving kickbacks in exchange for prescription referrals.
A physician is an attractive target for kickback schemes. The kickback prohibition applies to all sources, even patients. For example, where the Medicare and Medicaid programs require patients to be responsible for copays for services, the health care provider is generally required to collect that money from the patients. Advertising the forgiveness of copayments or routinely waiving these copays would violate AKS. However, one may waive a copayment when a patient cannot afford to pay one or is uninsured. AKS also imposes civil monetary penalties on physicians who offer remuneration to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to influence them to use their services. Note that the government does not need to prove patient harm or financial loss to show that a violation has occurred, and physicians can be guilty even if they rendered services that are medically necessary.
There are so-called safe harbors that protect certain payment and business practices from running afoul of AKS. The rules and requirements are complex, and require full understanding and strict adherence.4
Physician Self-Referral Law
The Physician Self-Referral Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn), commonly referred to as the Stark law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both ownership/investment interests and compensation arrangements. A partial list of “designated health services” includes services related to clinical laboratory, physical therapy, radiology, parenteral and enteral supplies, prosthetic devices and supplies, home health care outpatient prescription drugs, and inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This list is not meant to be an exhaustive one.
Stark is a strict liability statute, which means proof of specific intent to violate the law is not required. The law prohibits the submission, or causing the submission, of claims in violation of the law’s restrictions on referrals. Penalties for physicians who violate the Stark law include fines, as well as exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Like AKS, Stark law features its own safe harbors.
Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some materials may have been discussed in earlier columns. For additional information, readers may contact the author at siang@hawaii.edu.
References
1. HHS Office of Inspector General. About OIG. https://oig.hhs.gov/about-oig/about-us/index.asp
2. HHS Office of Inspector General. OIG most wanted fugitives.
3. HHS Office of Inspector General. “Physician education training materials.” A roadmap for new physicians: Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
4. HHS Office of Inspector General. Safe harbor regulations.
Question: Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
A. Office of Inspector General (OIG) is a federal agency of Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) that investigates statutory violations of health care fraud and abuse.
B. The three main legal minefields for physicians are false claims, kickbacks, and self-referrals.
C. Jail terms are part of the penalties provided by law.
D. OIG is also responsible for excluding violators from participating in Medicare/Medicaid programs, as well as curtailing a physician’s license to practice.
E. A private citizen can file a qui tam lawsuit against an errant practitioner or health care entity for fraud and abuse.
Answer: D. Health care fraud, waste, and abuse consume some 10% of federal health expenditures despite well-established laws that attempt to prevent and reduce such losses. The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General, as well as the Department of Justice and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are charged with enforcing these and other laws like the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. Their web pages, referenced throughout this article, contain a wealth of information for the practitioner.
The term “Office of Inspector General” (OIG) refers to the oversight division of a federal or state agency charged with identifying and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within that department or agency. There are currently 73 separate federal offices of inspectors general, which employ armed and unarmed criminal investigators, auditors, forensic auditors called “audigators,” and a variety of other specialists. An Act of Congress in 1976 established the first OIG under HHS. Besides being the first, HHS-OIG is also the largest, with a staff of approximately 1,600. A majority of resources goes toward the oversight of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs under other HHS institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.1
HHS-OIG has the authority to seek civil monetary penalties, assessments, and exclusion against an individual or entity based on a wide variety of prohibited conduct affecting federal health care programs. Stiff penalties are regularly assessed against violators, and jail terms are not uncommon; however, it has no direct jurisdictions over physician licensure or nonfederal programs. The government maintains a pictorial list of its most wanted health care fugitives2 and provides an excellent set of Physician Education Training Materials on its website.3
False Claims Act (FCA)
In the health care arena, violation of FCA (31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733) is the foremost infraction. False claims by physicians can include billing for noncovered services such as experimental treatments, double billing, billing the government as the primary payer, or regularly waiving deductibles and copayments, as well as quality of care issues and unnecessary services. Wrongdoing also includes knowingly using another patient’s name for purposes of, say, federal drug coverage, billing for no-shows, and misrepresenting the diagnosis to justify services, as well as other claims. In the modern doctor’s office, the EMR enables easy check-offs on a preprinted form as documentation of actual work done. However, fraud is implicated if the information is deliberately misleading such as for purposes of upcoding. Importantly, physicians are liable for the actions of their office staff, so it is prudent to oversee and supervise all such activities. Naturally, one should document all claims that are sent and know the rules for allowable and excluded services.
FCA is an old law that was first enacted in 1863. It imposes liability for submitting a payment demand to the federal government where there is actual or constructive knowledge that the claim is false. Intent to defraud is not a required element but knowing or showing reckless disregard of the truth is. However, an error that is negligently committed is insufficient to constitute a violation. Penalties include treble damages, costs and attorney fees, and fines of $11,000 per false claim, as well as possible imprisonment and criminal fines. A so-called whistle-blower may file a lawsuit on behalf of the government and is entitled to a percentage of any recoveries. Whistle-blowers may be current or ex-business partners, hospital or office staff, patients, or competitors. The fact that a claim results from a kickback or is made in violation of the Stark law (discussed below) may also render it fraudulent, thus creating additional liability under FCA.
HHS-OIG, as well as the Department of Justice, discloses named cases of statutory violations on their websites. A few random 2019 examples include a New York licensed doctor was convicted of nine counts in connection with Oxycodone and Fentanyl diversion scheme; a Newton, Mass., geriatrician agreed to pay $680,000 to resolve allegations that he violated the False Claims Act by submitting inflated claims to Medicare and the Massachusetts Medicaid program (MassHealth) for care rendered to nursing home patients; and two Clermont, Fla., ophthalmologists agreed to pay a combined total of $157,312.32 to resolve allegations that they violated FCA by knowingly billing the government for mutually exclusive eyelid repair surgeries.
Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS)
AKS (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b[b]) is a criminal law that prohibits the knowing and willful payment of “remuneration” to induce or reward patient referrals or the generation of business involving any item or service payable by federal health care programs. Remuneration includes anything of value and can take many forms besides cash, such as free rent, lavish travel, and excessive compensation for medical directorships or consultancies. Rewarding a referral source may be acceptable in some industries, but is a crime in federal health care programs.
Moreover, the statute covers both the payers of kickbacks (those who offer or pay remuneration) and the recipients of kickbacks. Each party’s intent is a key element of their liability under AKS. Physicians who pay or accept kickbacks face penalties of up to $50,000 per kickback plus three times the amount of the remuneration and criminal prosecution. As an example, a Tulsa, Okla., doctor earlier this year agreed to pay the government $84,666.42 for allegedly accepting illegal kickback payments from a pharmacy, and in another case, a marketer agreed to pay nearly $340,000 for receiving kickbacks in exchange for prescription referrals.
A physician is an attractive target for kickback schemes. The kickback prohibition applies to all sources, even patients. For example, where the Medicare and Medicaid programs require patients to be responsible for copays for services, the health care provider is generally required to collect that money from the patients. Advertising the forgiveness of copayments or routinely waiving these copays would violate AKS. However, one may waive a copayment when a patient cannot afford to pay one or is uninsured. AKS also imposes civil monetary penalties on physicians who offer remuneration to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to influence them to use their services. Note that the government does not need to prove patient harm or financial loss to show that a violation has occurred, and physicians can be guilty even if they rendered services that are medically necessary.
There are so-called safe harbors that protect certain payment and business practices from running afoul of AKS. The rules and requirements are complex, and require full understanding and strict adherence.4
Physician Self-Referral Law
The Physician Self-Referral Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn), commonly referred to as the Stark law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies. Financial relationships include both ownership/investment interests and compensation arrangements. A partial list of “designated health services” includes services related to clinical laboratory, physical therapy, radiology, parenteral and enteral supplies, prosthetic devices and supplies, home health care outpatient prescription drugs, and inpatient and outpatient hospital services. This list is not meant to be an exhaustive one.
Stark is a strict liability statute, which means proof of specific intent to violate the law is not required. The law prohibits the submission, or causing the submission, of claims in violation of the law’s restrictions on referrals. Penalties for physicians who violate the Stark law include fines, as well as exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Like AKS, Stark law features its own safe harbors.
Dr. Tan is professor emeritus of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. Some materials may have been discussed in earlier columns. For additional information, readers may contact the author at siang@hawaii.edu.
References
1. HHS Office of Inspector General. About OIG. https://oig.hhs.gov/about-oig/about-us/index.asp
2. HHS Office of Inspector General. OIG most wanted fugitives.
3. HHS Office of Inspector General. “Physician education training materials.” A roadmap for new physicians: Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
4. HHS Office of Inspector General. Safe harbor regulations.
What psychiatrists need to know about the Green New Deal
My final appointment for the day was very late, with only 10 minutes left in the session. I was closing my office door when my patient, a middle-aged woman, rushed up and said: “I am sorry to be so late, but traffic was terrible. I am out of my meds. Will you still see me?” I agreed. She was touched and thanked me.
As she sat down, still breathless, she said: “I have had a lot on my mind. After we work out the meds, could we please talk about them? One thing is the climate problem, but there is really no point in worrying about something you cannot do anything about.”
I refilled her meds, then I responded to her offhand comment about climate by saying, “I, too, have been concerned about climate change. Tell me your concerns.” She opened up and, to my surprise, burst into tears, saying, “how terrible it is, what we’re doing to the earth, and how bad it will be for those to come. How could we leave the earth in such a mess?” She was clearly grieving. I agreed and said: “There is a lot to be done, and we can do many things to help. Have you heard about the Green New Deal?” We talked about this for a few minutes, and she was very interested.
At first, she disavowed the problem, saying that, while it bothered her, nothing could be done about it, so why talk about it? Disavowal is a common defense that shields us from our real feelings about disturbing problems. Once I invited her to talk about it, she opened up with grief and near paralyzing sadness. This was my opportunity to let her know that there is a realistic plan for dealing with climate change. If she were to get politically active or involved with like-minded groups, hope could be possible. (As young Greta Thunberg, the Swedish youth climate action leader, teaches us, “Where there is no action, there is no hope, but where there is action, hope is everywhere.”)
So, what does a psychiatrist need to know about the Green New Deal?
It is essentially a broad legislative conceptual agenda with wide-ranging implications. The resolution has growing support in Congress. Its scope has been compared to the 1960s moon landing or the New Deal that helped this nation come out of the Great Depression. The primary goal is to bring the United States to 100% sustainable clean energy by 2030. It also proposes to help those most vulnerable to the stresses of climate change, such as “indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deinstitutionalized communities, depopulated communities, the poor, lower income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Our patient population reflects many of those cohorts and will likely be helped directly by this ambitious agenda.
Specifically, the Green New Deal would transition the United States from fossil fuel dependence to clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, upgrade the power grid, refurbish and retrofit buildings to become sustainable and energy efficient, overhaul transportation systems, and promote the transition to electric vehicles and high-speed rail. This transition of the infrastructure and economy will, in turn, create millions of good jobs, including meaningful and rewarding work for workers and communities transitioning away from fossil fuel industry–related activities.
The Green New Deal is intended to address the reality and risks of climate change. The World Health Organization has deemed climate change the greatest public health threat of the 21st century. Consider the following ominous developments:
The current atmospheric CO2 level is 415 parts per million and rising, an increase from preindustrial levels of 278 ppm. Earthworms have now expanded their territory to include boreal forests near the Arctic, munching the foot-thick organic forest floor, potentially releasing much more CO2. Permafrost is melting near the Arctic, as is sea ice, reducing the amount of solar radiation reflected back to space. Perversely and ironically, the loss of sea ice is touted by some climate deniers as an opportunity for expanded oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.
Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and duration. Record-setting hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, heat waves, and wildfires are becoming the “new normal,” except for the fact that they are expected to continue worsening.
If the United States continues business as usual without addressing our climate trajectory, there will be dire consequences for all future generations. Without serious efforts to combat global warming, a 4- to 5-degree Celsius increase by the end of the century is likely. This would be catastrophic, leading to the collapse of the ice sheets, massive coastal inundation, unrelenting heat waves, wildfires beyond imagination, severe droughts, starvation, immense storms, and vast areas of the earth becoming uninhabitable.
It is time for the United States to join the rest of the world in dealing with global warming. The nations of the earth need to unite for the common good and to save our planet. The Green New Deal would represent a major step in that direction and would certainly help our patients to have more meaningful, hopeful, and healthier lives.
Dr. Peterson is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry at Georgetown University in Washington. He is an active member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance and the Caucus on Climate Change and Mental Health at the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Peterson changed key facts about the patient’s story to protect her confidentiality.
My final appointment for the day was very late, with only 10 minutes left in the session. I was closing my office door when my patient, a middle-aged woman, rushed up and said: “I am sorry to be so late, but traffic was terrible. I am out of my meds. Will you still see me?” I agreed. She was touched and thanked me.
As she sat down, still breathless, she said: “I have had a lot on my mind. After we work out the meds, could we please talk about them? One thing is the climate problem, but there is really no point in worrying about something you cannot do anything about.”
I refilled her meds, then I responded to her offhand comment about climate by saying, “I, too, have been concerned about climate change. Tell me your concerns.” She opened up and, to my surprise, burst into tears, saying, “how terrible it is, what we’re doing to the earth, and how bad it will be for those to come. How could we leave the earth in such a mess?” She was clearly grieving. I agreed and said: “There is a lot to be done, and we can do many things to help. Have you heard about the Green New Deal?” We talked about this for a few minutes, and she was very interested.
At first, she disavowed the problem, saying that, while it bothered her, nothing could be done about it, so why talk about it? Disavowal is a common defense that shields us from our real feelings about disturbing problems. Once I invited her to talk about it, she opened up with grief and near paralyzing sadness. This was my opportunity to let her know that there is a realistic plan for dealing with climate change. If she were to get politically active or involved with like-minded groups, hope could be possible. (As young Greta Thunberg, the Swedish youth climate action leader, teaches us, “Where there is no action, there is no hope, but where there is action, hope is everywhere.”)
So, what does a psychiatrist need to know about the Green New Deal?
It is essentially a broad legislative conceptual agenda with wide-ranging implications. The resolution has growing support in Congress. Its scope has been compared to the 1960s moon landing or the New Deal that helped this nation come out of the Great Depression. The primary goal is to bring the United States to 100% sustainable clean energy by 2030. It also proposes to help those most vulnerable to the stresses of climate change, such as “indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deinstitutionalized communities, depopulated communities, the poor, lower income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Our patient population reflects many of those cohorts and will likely be helped directly by this ambitious agenda.
Specifically, the Green New Deal would transition the United States from fossil fuel dependence to clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, upgrade the power grid, refurbish and retrofit buildings to become sustainable and energy efficient, overhaul transportation systems, and promote the transition to electric vehicles and high-speed rail. This transition of the infrastructure and economy will, in turn, create millions of good jobs, including meaningful and rewarding work for workers and communities transitioning away from fossil fuel industry–related activities.
The Green New Deal is intended to address the reality and risks of climate change. The World Health Organization has deemed climate change the greatest public health threat of the 21st century. Consider the following ominous developments:
The current atmospheric CO2 level is 415 parts per million and rising, an increase from preindustrial levels of 278 ppm. Earthworms have now expanded their territory to include boreal forests near the Arctic, munching the foot-thick organic forest floor, potentially releasing much more CO2. Permafrost is melting near the Arctic, as is sea ice, reducing the amount of solar radiation reflected back to space. Perversely and ironically, the loss of sea ice is touted by some climate deniers as an opportunity for expanded oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.
Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and duration. Record-setting hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, heat waves, and wildfires are becoming the “new normal,” except for the fact that they are expected to continue worsening.
If the United States continues business as usual without addressing our climate trajectory, there will be dire consequences for all future generations. Without serious efforts to combat global warming, a 4- to 5-degree Celsius increase by the end of the century is likely. This would be catastrophic, leading to the collapse of the ice sheets, massive coastal inundation, unrelenting heat waves, wildfires beyond imagination, severe droughts, starvation, immense storms, and vast areas of the earth becoming uninhabitable.
It is time for the United States to join the rest of the world in dealing with global warming. The nations of the earth need to unite for the common good and to save our planet. The Green New Deal would represent a major step in that direction and would certainly help our patients to have more meaningful, hopeful, and healthier lives.
Dr. Peterson is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry at Georgetown University in Washington. He is an active member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance and the Caucus on Climate Change and Mental Health at the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Peterson changed key facts about the patient’s story to protect her confidentiality.
My final appointment for the day was very late, with only 10 minutes left in the session. I was closing my office door when my patient, a middle-aged woman, rushed up and said: “I am sorry to be so late, but traffic was terrible. I am out of my meds. Will you still see me?” I agreed. She was touched and thanked me.
As she sat down, still breathless, she said: “I have had a lot on my mind. After we work out the meds, could we please talk about them? One thing is the climate problem, but there is really no point in worrying about something you cannot do anything about.”
I refilled her meds, then I responded to her offhand comment about climate by saying, “I, too, have been concerned about climate change. Tell me your concerns.” She opened up and, to my surprise, burst into tears, saying, “how terrible it is, what we’re doing to the earth, and how bad it will be for those to come. How could we leave the earth in such a mess?” She was clearly grieving. I agreed and said: “There is a lot to be done, and we can do many things to help. Have you heard about the Green New Deal?” We talked about this for a few minutes, and she was very interested.
At first, she disavowed the problem, saying that, while it bothered her, nothing could be done about it, so why talk about it? Disavowal is a common defense that shields us from our real feelings about disturbing problems. Once I invited her to talk about it, she opened up with grief and near paralyzing sadness. This was my opportunity to let her know that there is a realistic plan for dealing with climate change. If she were to get politically active or involved with like-minded groups, hope could be possible. (As young Greta Thunberg, the Swedish youth climate action leader, teaches us, “Where there is no action, there is no hope, but where there is action, hope is everywhere.”)
So, what does a psychiatrist need to know about the Green New Deal?
It is essentially a broad legislative conceptual agenda with wide-ranging implications. The resolution has growing support in Congress. Its scope has been compared to the 1960s moon landing or the New Deal that helped this nation come out of the Great Depression. The primary goal is to bring the United States to 100% sustainable clean energy by 2030. It also proposes to help those most vulnerable to the stresses of climate change, such as “indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deinstitutionalized communities, depopulated communities, the poor, lower income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Our patient population reflects many of those cohorts and will likely be helped directly by this ambitious agenda.
Specifically, the Green New Deal would transition the United States from fossil fuel dependence to clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, upgrade the power grid, refurbish and retrofit buildings to become sustainable and energy efficient, overhaul transportation systems, and promote the transition to electric vehicles and high-speed rail. This transition of the infrastructure and economy will, in turn, create millions of good jobs, including meaningful and rewarding work for workers and communities transitioning away from fossil fuel industry–related activities.
The Green New Deal is intended to address the reality and risks of climate change. The World Health Organization has deemed climate change the greatest public health threat of the 21st century. Consider the following ominous developments:
The current atmospheric CO2 level is 415 parts per million and rising, an increase from preindustrial levels of 278 ppm. Earthworms have now expanded their territory to include boreal forests near the Arctic, munching the foot-thick organic forest floor, potentially releasing much more CO2. Permafrost is melting near the Arctic, as is sea ice, reducing the amount of solar radiation reflected back to space. Perversely and ironically, the loss of sea ice is touted by some climate deniers as an opportunity for expanded oil and gas exploration in the Arctic.
Extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and duration. Record-setting hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, heat waves, and wildfires are becoming the “new normal,” except for the fact that they are expected to continue worsening.
If the United States continues business as usual without addressing our climate trajectory, there will be dire consequences for all future generations. Without serious efforts to combat global warming, a 4- to 5-degree Celsius increase by the end of the century is likely. This would be catastrophic, leading to the collapse of the ice sheets, massive coastal inundation, unrelenting heat waves, wildfires beyond imagination, severe droughts, starvation, immense storms, and vast areas of the earth becoming uninhabitable.
It is time for the United States to join the rest of the world in dealing with global warming. The nations of the earth need to unite for the common good and to save our planet. The Green New Deal would represent a major step in that direction and would certainly help our patients to have more meaningful, hopeful, and healthier lives.
Dr. Peterson is assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry at Georgetown University in Washington. He is an active member of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance and the Caucus on Climate Change and Mental Health at the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Peterson changed key facts about the patient’s story to protect her confidentiality.
Pink scaly rash on torso and extremities
Tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors are therapeutic agents used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as psoriasis of the skin (PSO) and psoriatic arthritis. In a 2017 systematic review, there were 216 reported cases of new-onset TNF-alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasis, with an estimated rate of 1 per 1,000. The cases thus far have had a wide range of presentations, the most common being plaque psoriasis, scalp psoriasis, as well as palmoplantar pustular psoriasis.1
A retrospective chart review study at Mayo clinic published in 2017 evaluated children younger than 19 years seen in 2003-2015 who developed new-onset or recurrent PSO with a history of inflammatory bowel disease being treated with anti-TNF-alpha therapy. The review showed variable latency in the development of PSO in these patients, although it typically occurred during inflammatory bowel disease remission.2 It is unclear whether there is an association between a personal or family history of psoriasis and development of these lesions.
TNF-alpha, interleukin (IL)–17) and interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) are main cytokines that contribute to the development of psoriasis. The mechanism of action for paradoxical PSO/psoriasis in patients treated with anti-TNF is not clearly understood; however, many hypotheses are based on an imbalance between TNF-alpha and interferon-alpha – more specifically, an increased production of interferon-alpha. TNF-alpha inhibits the activity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells which are key producers of IFN-alpha. Because of this blockade, there is unopposed IFN-alpha production. Interferon-alpha allows for the expression of chemokines such as CXCR3, which favor T cells homing to the skin. IFN-alpha also stimulates and activates T cells to produce TNF-alpha and IL-17, which in turn sustains inflammatory mechanisms and allows for the development of psoriatic lesions.3
There are no universal management guidelines. Most of these patients’ treatment plans mirror standard psoriasis therapies while the main question remains the decision to continue the same anti-TNF therapy, change anti-TNF agents, or entirely switch classes of biologic or other systemic therapy. This decision in management requires several considerations: treatability of TNF-alpha inhibitor-induced psoriasis, the severity of background disease (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, other systemic condition), and whether the underlying disease is well controlled on current therapy, as well as the consideration of possible loss in efficacy if a drug is discontinued and then restarted at a later date.4
A reasonable initial approach in patients with well-controlled underlying disease and mild skin eruption is to continue anti-TNF therapy and manage skin topically with topical corticosteroids and/or phototherapy. In patients that either do not have well-controlled underlying disease or moderate skin involvement, changing to an alternative anti-TNF or other agent may be reasonable, and requires coordinated care with involved specialists. In the 2017 pediatric review mentioned previously, nearly half of the patients required a change in their initial anti-TNF-alpha agent despite conventional skin-directed therapies, and one-third of patients discontinued all anti-TNF-alpha therapy because of PSO.2
The psoriasiform papulosquamous features of this case along with the history suggests the diagnosis. Pityriasis rosea would be highly atypical on the feet and with the duration of findings. Lichen planus and atopic dermatitis morphology are inconsistent with this eruption, and coxsackie viral infection would have a shorter course.
Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76(2):334-41.
2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 May;34(3):253-60.
3. RMD Open. 2016 Jul 15;2(2):e000239.
4. J Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis. 2019 Apr;4(2):70-80.
Tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors are therapeutic agents used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as psoriasis of the skin (PSO) and psoriatic arthritis. In a 2017 systematic review, there were 216 reported cases of new-onset TNF-alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasis, with an estimated rate of 1 per 1,000. The cases thus far have had a wide range of presentations, the most common being plaque psoriasis, scalp psoriasis, as well as palmoplantar pustular psoriasis.1
A retrospective chart review study at Mayo clinic published in 2017 evaluated children younger than 19 years seen in 2003-2015 who developed new-onset or recurrent PSO with a history of inflammatory bowel disease being treated with anti-TNF-alpha therapy. The review showed variable latency in the development of PSO in these patients, although it typically occurred during inflammatory bowel disease remission.2 It is unclear whether there is an association between a personal or family history of psoriasis and development of these lesions.
TNF-alpha, interleukin (IL)–17) and interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) are main cytokines that contribute to the development of psoriasis. The mechanism of action for paradoxical PSO/psoriasis in patients treated with anti-TNF is not clearly understood; however, many hypotheses are based on an imbalance between TNF-alpha and interferon-alpha – more specifically, an increased production of interferon-alpha. TNF-alpha inhibits the activity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells which are key producers of IFN-alpha. Because of this blockade, there is unopposed IFN-alpha production. Interferon-alpha allows for the expression of chemokines such as CXCR3, which favor T cells homing to the skin. IFN-alpha also stimulates and activates T cells to produce TNF-alpha and IL-17, which in turn sustains inflammatory mechanisms and allows for the development of psoriatic lesions.3
There are no universal management guidelines. Most of these patients’ treatment plans mirror standard psoriasis therapies while the main question remains the decision to continue the same anti-TNF therapy, change anti-TNF agents, or entirely switch classes of biologic or other systemic therapy. This decision in management requires several considerations: treatability of TNF-alpha inhibitor-induced psoriasis, the severity of background disease (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, other systemic condition), and whether the underlying disease is well controlled on current therapy, as well as the consideration of possible loss in efficacy if a drug is discontinued and then restarted at a later date.4
A reasonable initial approach in patients with well-controlled underlying disease and mild skin eruption is to continue anti-TNF therapy and manage skin topically with topical corticosteroids and/or phototherapy. In patients that either do not have well-controlled underlying disease or moderate skin involvement, changing to an alternative anti-TNF or other agent may be reasonable, and requires coordinated care with involved specialists. In the 2017 pediatric review mentioned previously, nearly half of the patients required a change in their initial anti-TNF-alpha agent despite conventional skin-directed therapies, and one-third of patients discontinued all anti-TNF-alpha therapy because of PSO.2
The psoriasiform papulosquamous features of this case along with the history suggests the diagnosis. Pityriasis rosea would be highly atypical on the feet and with the duration of findings. Lichen planus and atopic dermatitis morphology are inconsistent with this eruption, and coxsackie viral infection would have a shorter course.
Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76(2):334-41.
2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 May;34(3):253-60.
3. RMD Open. 2016 Jul 15;2(2):e000239.
4. J Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis. 2019 Apr;4(2):70-80.
Tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors are therapeutic agents used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as psoriasis of the skin (PSO) and psoriatic arthritis. In a 2017 systematic review, there were 216 reported cases of new-onset TNF-alpha inhibitor–induced psoriasis, with an estimated rate of 1 per 1,000. The cases thus far have had a wide range of presentations, the most common being plaque psoriasis, scalp psoriasis, as well as palmoplantar pustular psoriasis.1
A retrospective chart review study at Mayo clinic published in 2017 evaluated children younger than 19 years seen in 2003-2015 who developed new-onset or recurrent PSO with a history of inflammatory bowel disease being treated with anti-TNF-alpha therapy. The review showed variable latency in the development of PSO in these patients, although it typically occurred during inflammatory bowel disease remission.2 It is unclear whether there is an association between a personal or family history of psoriasis and development of these lesions.
TNF-alpha, interleukin (IL)–17) and interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha) are main cytokines that contribute to the development of psoriasis. The mechanism of action for paradoxical PSO/psoriasis in patients treated with anti-TNF is not clearly understood; however, many hypotheses are based on an imbalance between TNF-alpha and interferon-alpha – more specifically, an increased production of interferon-alpha. TNF-alpha inhibits the activity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells which are key producers of IFN-alpha. Because of this blockade, there is unopposed IFN-alpha production. Interferon-alpha allows for the expression of chemokines such as CXCR3, which favor T cells homing to the skin. IFN-alpha also stimulates and activates T cells to produce TNF-alpha and IL-17, which in turn sustains inflammatory mechanisms and allows for the development of psoriatic lesions.3
There are no universal management guidelines. Most of these patients’ treatment plans mirror standard psoriasis therapies while the main question remains the decision to continue the same anti-TNF therapy, change anti-TNF agents, or entirely switch classes of biologic or other systemic therapy. This decision in management requires several considerations: treatability of TNF-alpha inhibitor-induced psoriasis, the severity of background disease (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, other systemic condition), and whether the underlying disease is well controlled on current therapy, as well as the consideration of possible loss in efficacy if a drug is discontinued and then restarted at a later date.4
A reasonable initial approach in patients with well-controlled underlying disease and mild skin eruption is to continue anti-TNF therapy and manage skin topically with topical corticosteroids and/or phototherapy. In patients that either do not have well-controlled underlying disease or moderate skin involvement, changing to an alternative anti-TNF or other agent may be reasonable, and requires coordinated care with involved specialists. In the 2017 pediatric review mentioned previously, nearly half of the patients required a change in their initial anti-TNF-alpha agent despite conventional skin-directed therapies, and one-third of patients discontinued all anti-TNF-alpha therapy because of PSO.2
The psoriasiform papulosquamous features of this case along with the history suggests the diagnosis. Pityriasis rosea would be highly atypical on the feet and with the duration of findings. Lichen planus and atopic dermatitis morphology are inconsistent with this eruption, and coxsackie viral infection would have a shorter course.
Dr. Tracy is a research fellow in pediatric dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb;76(2):334-41.
2. Pediatr Dermatol. 2017 May;34(3):253-60.
3. RMD Open. 2016 Jul 15;2(2):e000239.
4. J Psoriasis Psoriatic Arthritis. 2019 Apr;4(2):70-80.
A 17-year-old male with a history of Crohn's disease, well controlled on infliximab, is seen for evaluation of a pink scaly rash on the torso, upper extremities, and lower extremities. The rash began 5 months previously and has been mostly asymptomatic. The patient denies pruritus or pain at the affected areas. There is no fever or drainage from any of the sites. The patient has not undergone any treatments. He does not have a personal or family history of chronic skin conditions.
On physical exam, he is noted to have numerous pink papules and plaques with overlying scale on his trunk, as well as the dorsal aspects of bilateral hands and the plantar surfaces of bilateral feet. His skin is otherwise unremarkable.
Long-term care insurance
A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.
Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.
, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.
The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.
You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.
Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)
As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.
If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.
To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.
But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.
Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.
Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.
, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.
The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.
You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.
Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)
As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.
If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.
To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.
But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.
Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
A few years ago, my seemingly indestructible 94-year-old mother suffered a series of medical setbacks. As her health problems accumulated, so did the complexity and cost of her care, progressing from her home to an assisted-living facility to a nursing home. It was heartbreaking – and expensive. My wife likened it to “putting another kid through college” – an elite private college, at that.
Medicare, of course, did not cover any of this, except for physician visits and some of her medications. When it was finally over, my wife and I resolved that, should we face a similar situation in our final years, we could not put ourselves or our children through a similar financial ordeal.
, in-home services, and other end-of-life expenses. (Covered services vary by policy; and as always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned here.)
According to the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance (AALTCI), the average annual LTCI premium for a 60-year-old couple is $3,490. Not cheap; but there are ways to lower premiums without gutting your coverage.
The best way to keep costs down is to get in early. In general, the younger you are and the better health you are in, the lower your premiums will be. For example – again according to the AALTCI – that “average” annual premium of $3,490 for a hypothetical 60-year-old couple would increase 34%, to $4,675, if they waited until they were 65 to buy the policy. And if their health were to decline in the interim, they might not be able to obtain adequate coverage at all.
You can also lower premiums by decreasing daily benefits, or increasing the “elimination period” – the length of time after you become eligible for benefits that the policy starts paying them; 30-, 60-, and 90-day periods are common. As long as you have sufficient savings to realistically cover costs until the elimination period is over, choosing a longer one can reduce your costs significantly.
Another variable is the maximum length of time the policy will pay out benefits. Ideally, you would want a payout to continue for as long as necessary, but few if any companies are willing to write uncapped policies anymore. Two to five years of benefits is a common time frame. (The “average” premiums quoted above assume a benefit of $150 per day with a 3-year cap and a 90-day elimination period.)
As with any insurance, it is important not to overbuy LTCI. It isn’t necessary to obtain coverage that will pay for 100% of your long-term care costs – just the portion that your projected retirement income (Social Security, pensions, income from savings) may not be sufficient to cover. Buying only the amount of coverage you need will substantially reduce your premium costs over the life of the policy.
If you work for a hospital or a large group, it’s worth checking to see if your employer offers LTCI. Employer-sponsored plans are often offered at discounted group rates, and you can usually keep the policy even if you leave. If you’re a member of any social or religious groups, check their insurance plans as well.
To be sure, there is considerable debate about whether LTCI is worth the cost. Premiums for new policies are rising at a steep clip – 9% annually, according to the AALTCI – and insurers are allowed to raise premiums even after you buy the policy, so you’ll need to factor that possibility into your budget.
But forgoing coverage can be costly too: If you know you will have to cover your own long-term care costs, you won’t be able to spend that money on things you really care about – like your grandkids, or travel, or charitable work. You might even forgo necessary medical care for fear of running out of money.
Everyone must make their own decision. My wife and I decided that a few thousand dollars per year is a fair price to pay for the peace of mind of knowing we will be able to afford proper supportive care, without help from our children or anyone else, regardless of what happens in the years to come.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.