Opinion

Bob has been coming to therapy for a few months now. Initially, we met every week, but as his depression lifted, he asked to space the sessions out to twice a month, even as he continues to struggle with many challenges in his life. The cost, he says, is prohibitive, and while Bob believed he had good commercial insurance coverage, he’s learned a few things about insurance and mental health care.

Bob was referred to me by his internist. He knew I did not participate in his insurance network, but his policy covers out-of-network care. He’d had a number of imaging studies and then knee surgery earlier in the year, so he believed he’d met his deductible. He learned that, while he’d met his in-network deductible, he’d had no out-of-network expenses and there was a separate, much higher deductible – one he was not likely to meet with outpatient psychiatric care. In fact, the full cost of his treatment was not being subtracted from the deductible he needed to meet, but rather he was getting credit for lower usual and customary evaluation and management and psychotherapy fees for each session. It became clear that it would be many months – if ever – before Bob could expect any reimbursement for his out-of-network visits.

What Bob didn’t know was that, had he decided to switch to an in-network psychiatrist, he might well have trouble finding one, since half of psychiatrists don’t participate with any health insurance plans. And if he did see an in-network psychiatrist, he would likely need to find a separate in-network social worker or psychologist for psychotherapy, because most in-network psychiatrists see patients for short medication-management appointments. While the insurance companies would give Bob a list of providers, those lists are not kept up to date and include psychiatrists who have died, moved, aren’t taking new patients, or who have retired. The insurance company clearly states on its voicemail that verification of services does not guarantee payment, and Bob was told that the only way he could be certain of the reimbursement would be to submit the claims and wait. He went into treatment fully understanding that he might get no help with the cost from his health insurance.

When I first started in private practice in the 1990s, I joined only one panel. An older colleague told me I was foolish to hesitate, and that soon the panels would fill and it would be too late; psychiatrists wouldn’t be able to get on to the panels and would be unable to attract patients. A few years later, that same psychiatrist withdrew from all the insurance panels he was on; working on their terms was not rewarding. This division of in-network and out-of-network care is crucial to managed care: They must attract panels of doctors who will work for lower rates or with stipulations on how the doctor practices in order to save money.

But managed care came with a price: An entire administration was created to oversee the regulation of treatment. With time, some aspects of care management have vanished; it has been years since I have been asked to fill out a treatment plan to justify a need for outpatient psychotherapy. In Bob’s case, it’s clear how they save money; since he will not reach his high deductible, he will bear the full cost of his psychotherapy. Other patients who cannot afford to go out of network may give up searching and decide to go without treatment – this is not always an easy service to negotiate when one is distressed and compromised. Half of people with serious psychiatric disorders are not in treatment, and barriers to getting care are certainly one reason why.

Many psychiatrists have discovered that they can maintain a practice without being on insurance panels, as managed care only works if there are enough players willing to toss the ball. As psychiatrists have shied away from these panels, insurers have raised their reimbursement rates, and in Maryland, Medicaid also has had to raise their rates. The struggle has become one of how to get enough mental health professionals, and psychiatrists in particular, to join insurance panels in what is a shortage field.

Maybe the question of how to get enough psychiatrists to participate with insurance panels is now the wrong question. Perhaps there are better ways to spend health care dollars than on the administration and management that come with limiting which doctors patients can see. The logistics of in-network versus out-of-network care are an expensive one, and create unconscionable scenarios in other fields. For example, such scenarios include ones in which a patient is brought in for emergency care to a facility where the doctors are not in network, or a patient has a procedure with an in-network surgeon but is unaware that the anesthesiologist or other members of the care team are not on the panel.

What if insurers controlled costs by setting a reasonable fee they would pay for services and paid any licensed physician for these services? Would market forces sort this out? Would fees then set to one which insurers would be willing to pay and physicians would be willing to accept? Or would those who are ill and impoverished be blocked from getting any care? What if we tried a whole new paradigm for psychiatric care?

Richard G. Frank, PhD, is a professor of health economics at Harvard. He specializes in mental health economics and is coauthor of the book “Better But Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the United States Since 1950” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Dr. Frank is a proponent of insurance panels.

“In the world we live in, we need to have panels; they are essential to controlling cost. They create a balance in terms of cost and utilization control in ways that protect patients, and they create a way for the insurance companies to bargain,” he said.

Dr. Frank noted that the concept that insurers should pay a set reasonable fee to any physician a patient wants to see has been tried. “It’s called ‘reference pricing,’ and when they did that with hip replacement surgery in California, it just hasn’t worked out. Patients ended up getting larger bills than they anticipated.

“The issues with psychiatry are different,” he continued. “There is a lot of bad behavior on the part of insurers and it’s an issue of parity. We shouldn’t let insurers differentially pay psychiatrists less. They have had an incentive to reduce the availability of mental health care and it’s bad for patients. It’s about lower payments to psychiatrists and the way those payments are currently structured drives patients out of care and defeats the purpose of insurance.”

Steven Sharfstein, MD, is the former CEO of Sheppard Pratt Health Systems, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, and coauthor of several books on the economics of psychiatry. He refers to the current practice of credentialing network psychiatrists as a means of “rationing by supply.”

“The networks create a barrier to accessing care. I don’t think it’s an efficient way to take on the high cost of care, and it creates a tiered system.” Like Dr. Frank, Dr. Sharfstein believes parity is a large part of the problem. When asked about the idea of ending networks and establishing uniform deductibles and reimbursement rates, Dr. Sharfstein replied: “It really depends. We would need fees to hit a sweet spot that supports care while controlling costs.”

One thing is clear: With the current paradigm, it is often difficult to access treatment, and the well-insured patients may bear a significant and disproportionate cost (if not the entire cost) for getting care. Many who need care do not get it, regardless of their insurance status. Our status quo for psychiatric care falls short and I don’t predict that psychiatrists will rush to join networks so long as the demand for psychiatrists is greater than the supply.

Might another financial model work better? We know the system is lacking and one option, as Dr. Frank suggests, is to find solutions within the current model. But perhaps the question should not be one of how to get more psychiatrists to join networks, but of how to rework the system without the assumption that networks are the only way. While Bob is pleased that his symptoms are getting better and he’s managed a way to tackle his own bills, it’s certainly time to explore new ways of delivering and reimbursing psychiatric care.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle of Inpatient Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and has a private practice in Baltimore.

Bob has been coming to therapy for a few months now. Initially, we met every week, but as his depression lifted, he asked to space the sessions out to twice a month, even as he continues to struggle with many challenges in his life. The cost, he says, is prohibitive, and while Bob believed he had good commercial insurance coverage, he’s learned a few things about insurance and mental health care.

Bob was referred to me by his internist. He knew I did not participate in his insurance network, but his policy covers out-of-network care. He’d had a number of imaging studies and then knee surgery earlier in the year, so he believed he’d met his deductible. He learned that, while he’d met his in-network deductible, he’d had no out-of-network expenses and there was a separate, much higher deductible – one he was not likely to meet with outpatient psychiatric care. In fact, the full cost of his treatment was not being subtracted from the deductible he needed to meet, but rather he was getting credit for lower usual and customary evaluation and management and psychotherapy fees for each session. It became clear that it would be many months – if ever – before Bob could expect any reimbursement for his out-of-network visits.

What Bob didn’t know was that, had he decided to switch to an in-network psychiatrist, he might well have trouble finding one, since half of psychiatrists don’t participate with any health insurance plans. And if he did see an in-network psychiatrist, he would likely need to find a separate in-network social worker or psychologist for psychotherapy, because most in-network psychiatrists see patients for short medication-management appointments. While the insurance companies would give Bob a list of providers, those lists are not kept up to date and include psychiatrists who have died, moved, aren’t taking new patients, or who have retired. The insurance company clearly states on its voicemail that verification of services does not guarantee payment, and Bob was told that the only way he could be certain of the reimbursement would be to submit the claims and wait. He went into treatment fully understanding that he might get no help with the cost from his health insurance.

When I first started in private practice in the 1990s, I joined only one panel. An older colleague told me I was foolish to hesitate, and that soon the panels would fill and it would be too late; psychiatrists wouldn’t be able to get on to the panels and would be unable to attract patients. A few years later, that same psychiatrist withdrew from all the insurance panels he was on; working on their terms was not rewarding. This division of in-network and out-of-network care is crucial to managed care: They must attract panels of doctors who will work for lower rates or with stipulations on how the doctor practices in order to save money.

But managed care came with a price: An entire administration was created to oversee the regulation of treatment. With time, some aspects of care management have vanished; it has been years since I have been asked to fill out a treatment plan to justify a need for outpatient psychotherapy. In Bob’s case, it’s clear how they save money; since he will not reach his high deductible, he will bear the full cost of his psychotherapy. Other patients who cannot afford to go out of network may give up searching and decide to go without treatment – this is not always an easy service to negotiate when one is distressed and compromised. Half of people with serious psychiatric disorders are not in treatment, and barriers to getting care are certainly one reason why.

Many psychiatrists have discovered that they can maintain a practice without being on insurance panels, as managed care only works if there are enough players willing to toss the ball. As psychiatrists have shied away from these panels, insurers have raised their reimbursement rates, and in Maryland, Medicaid also has had to raise their rates. The struggle has become one of how to get enough mental health professionals, and psychiatrists in particular, to join insurance panels in what is a shortage field.

Maybe the question of how to get enough psychiatrists to participate with insurance panels is now the wrong question. Perhaps there are better ways to spend health care dollars than on the administration and management that come with limiting which doctors patients can see. The logistics of in-network versus out-of-network care are an expensive one, and create unconscionable scenarios in other fields. For example, such scenarios include ones in which a patient is brought in for emergency care to a facility where the doctors are not in network, or a patient has a procedure with an in-network surgeon but is unaware that the anesthesiologist or other members of the care team are not on the panel.

What if insurers controlled costs by setting a reasonable fee they would pay for services and paid any licensed physician for these services? Would market forces sort this out? Would fees then set to one which insurers would be willing to pay and physicians would be willing to accept? Or would those who are ill and impoverished be blocked from getting any care? What if we tried a whole new paradigm for psychiatric care?

Richard G. Frank, PhD, is a professor of health economics at Harvard. He specializes in mental health economics and is coauthor of the book “Better But Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the United States Since 1950” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Dr. Frank is a proponent of insurance panels.

“In the world we live in, we need to have panels; they are essential to controlling cost. They create a balance in terms of cost and utilization control in ways that protect patients, and they create a way for the insurance companies to bargain,” he said.

Dr. Frank noted that the concept that insurers should pay a set reasonable fee to any physician a patient wants to see has been tried. “It’s called ‘reference pricing,’ and when they did that with hip replacement surgery in California, it just hasn’t worked out. Patients ended up getting larger bills than they anticipated.

“The issues with psychiatry are different,” he continued. “There is a lot of bad behavior on the part of insurers and it’s an issue of parity. We shouldn’t let insurers differentially pay psychiatrists less. They have had an incentive to reduce the availability of mental health care and it’s bad for patients. It’s about lower payments to psychiatrists and the way those payments are currently structured drives patients out of care and defeats the purpose of insurance.”

Steven Sharfstein, MD, is the former CEO of Sheppard Pratt Health Systems, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, and coauthor of several books on the economics of psychiatry. He refers to the current practice of credentialing network psychiatrists as a means of “rationing by supply.”

“The networks create a barrier to accessing care. I don’t think it’s an efficient way to take on the high cost of care, and it creates a tiered system.” Like Dr. Frank, Dr. Sharfstein believes parity is a large part of the problem. When asked about the idea of ending networks and establishing uniform deductibles and reimbursement rates, Dr. Sharfstein replied: “It really depends. We would need fees to hit a sweet spot that supports care while controlling costs.”

One thing is clear: With the current paradigm, it is often difficult to access treatment, and the well-insured patients may bear a significant and disproportionate cost (if not the entire cost) for getting care. Many who need care do not get it, regardless of their insurance status. Our status quo for psychiatric care falls short and I don’t predict that psychiatrists will rush to join networks so long as the demand for psychiatrists is greater than the supply.

Might another financial model work better? We know the system is lacking and one option, as Dr. Frank suggests, is to find solutions within the current model. But perhaps the question should not be one of how to get more psychiatrists to join networks, but of how to rework the system without the assumption that networks are the only way. While Bob is pleased that his symptoms are getting better and he’s managed a way to tackle his own bills, it’s certainly time to explore new ways of delivering and reimbursing psychiatric care.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle of Inpatient Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and has a private practice in Baltimore.

Bob has been coming to therapy for a few months now. Initially, we met every week, but as his depression lifted, he asked to space the sessions out to twice a month, even as he continues to struggle with many challenges in his life. The cost, he says, is prohibitive, and while Bob believed he had good commercial insurance coverage, he’s learned a few things about insurance and mental health care.

Bob was referred to me by his internist. He knew I did not participate in his insurance network, but his policy covers out-of-network care. He’d had a number of imaging studies and then knee surgery earlier in the year, so he believed he’d met his deductible. He learned that, while he’d met his in-network deductible, he’d had no out-of-network expenses and there was a separate, much higher deductible – one he was not likely to meet with outpatient psychiatric care. In fact, the full cost of his treatment was not being subtracted from the deductible he needed to meet, but rather he was getting credit for lower usual and customary evaluation and management and psychotherapy fees for each session. It became clear that it would be many months – if ever – before Bob could expect any reimbursement for his out-of-network visits.

What Bob didn’t know was that, had he decided to switch to an in-network psychiatrist, he might well have trouble finding one, since half of psychiatrists don’t participate with any health insurance plans. And if he did see an in-network psychiatrist, he would likely need to find a separate in-network social worker or psychologist for psychotherapy, because most in-network psychiatrists see patients for short medication-management appointments. While the insurance companies would give Bob a list of providers, those lists are not kept up to date and include psychiatrists who have died, moved, aren’t taking new patients, or who have retired. The insurance company clearly states on its voicemail that verification of services does not guarantee payment, and Bob was told that the only way he could be certain of the reimbursement would be to submit the claims and wait. He went into treatment fully understanding that he might get no help with the cost from his health insurance.

When I first started in private practice in the 1990s, I joined only one panel. An older colleague told me I was foolish to hesitate, and that soon the panels would fill and it would be too late; psychiatrists wouldn’t be able to get on to the panels and would be unable to attract patients. A few years later, that same psychiatrist withdrew from all the insurance panels he was on; working on their terms was not rewarding. This division of in-network and out-of-network care is crucial to managed care: They must attract panels of doctors who will work for lower rates or with stipulations on how the doctor practices in order to save money.

But managed care came with a price: An entire administration was created to oversee the regulation of treatment. With time, some aspects of care management have vanished; it has been years since I have been asked to fill out a treatment plan to justify a need for outpatient psychotherapy. In Bob’s case, it’s clear how they save money; since he will not reach his high deductible, he will bear the full cost of his psychotherapy. Other patients who cannot afford to go out of network may give up searching and decide to go without treatment – this is not always an easy service to negotiate when one is distressed and compromised. Half of people with serious psychiatric disorders are not in treatment, and barriers to getting care are certainly one reason why.

Many psychiatrists have discovered that they can maintain a practice without being on insurance panels, as managed care only works if there are enough players willing to toss the ball. As psychiatrists have shied away from these panels, insurers have raised their reimbursement rates, and in Maryland, Medicaid also has had to raise their rates. The struggle has become one of how to get enough mental health professionals, and psychiatrists in particular, to join insurance panels in what is a shortage field.

Maybe the question of how to get enough psychiatrists to participate with insurance panels is now the wrong question. Perhaps there are better ways to spend health care dollars than on the administration and management that come with limiting which doctors patients can see. The logistics of in-network versus out-of-network care are an expensive one, and create unconscionable scenarios in other fields. For example, such scenarios include ones in which a patient is brought in for emergency care to a facility where the doctors are not in network, or a patient has a procedure with an in-network surgeon but is unaware that the anesthesiologist or other members of the care team are not on the panel.

What if insurers controlled costs by setting a reasonable fee they would pay for services and paid any licensed physician for these services? Would market forces sort this out? Would fees then set to one which insurers would be willing to pay and physicians would be willing to accept? Or would those who are ill and impoverished be blocked from getting any care? What if we tried a whole new paradigm for psychiatric care?

Richard G. Frank, PhD, is a professor of health economics at Harvard. He specializes in mental health economics and is coauthor of the book “Better But Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the United States Since 1950” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). Dr. Frank is a proponent of insurance panels.

“In the world we live in, we need to have panels; they are essential to controlling cost. They create a balance in terms of cost and utilization control in ways that protect patients, and they create a way for the insurance companies to bargain,” he said.

Dr. Frank noted that the concept that insurers should pay a set reasonable fee to any physician a patient wants to see has been tried. “It’s called ‘reference pricing,’ and when they did that with hip replacement surgery in California, it just hasn’t worked out. Patients ended up getting larger bills than they anticipated.

“The issues with psychiatry are different,” he continued. “There is a lot of bad behavior on the part of insurers and it’s an issue of parity. We shouldn’t let insurers differentially pay psychiatrists less. They have had an incentive to reduce the availability of mental health care and it’s bad for patients. It’s about lower payments to psychiatrists and the way those payments are currently structured drives patients out of care and defeats the purpose of insurance.”

Steven Sharfstein, MD, is the former CEO of Sheppard Pratt Health Systems, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, and coauthor of several books on the economics of psychiatry. He refers to the current practice of credentialing network psychiatrists as a means of “rationing by supply.”

“The networks create a barrier to accessing care. I don’t think it’s an efficient way to take on the high cost of care, and it creates a tiered system.” Like Dr. Frank, Dr. Sharfstein believes parity is a large part of the problem. When asked about the idea of ending networks and establishing uniform deductibles and reimbursement rates, Dr. Sharfstein replied: “It really depends. We would need fees to hit a sweet spot that supports care while controlling costs.”

One thing is clear: With the current paradigm, it is often difficult to access treatment, and the well-insured patients may bear a significant and disproportionate cost (if not the entire cost) for getting care. Many who need care do not get it, regardless of their insurance status. Our status quo for psychiatric care falls short and I don’t predict that psychiatrists will rush to join networks so long as the demand for psychiatrists is greater than the supply.

Might another financial model work better? We know the system is lacking and one option, as Dr. Frank suggests, is to find solutions within the current model. But perhaps the question should not be one of how to get more psychiatrists to join networks, but of how to rework the system without the assumption that networks are the only way. While Bob is pleased that his symptoms are getting better and he’s managed a way to tackle his own bills, it’s certainly time to explore new ways of delivering and reimbursing psychiatric care.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle of Inpatient Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), and has a private practice in Baltimore.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Despite popular belief, the absence of a strong link between mental illness and violence has been well studied and established. In summary, in a small subset of patients, mental illness provides a minor increase in the risk of committing violence.¹

In part as a result of this research, police departments across the country have established programs and protocols to divert patients with mental illness out of the legal system and into mental hospitals. Instead of accepting the common refrain that mental illness is the explanation and best predictor of all atrocious behaviors, police departments have correctly referred patients with mental illness to mental hospitals. We commend those initiatives and encourage their adoption in all locales. Yet, to safeguard such programs, we would like to warn of a potential pitfall and offer possible remedies.

Having worked in both correctional and clinical settings, we are saddened by the similar nature of the work with respect to the management of mental illness. It should defy logic to assume the need for mental health care in our jails is in any way comparable to the one in mental hospitals. However, we have grown accustomed to seeing large numbers of our most vulnerable patients with severe mental illness accumulating in our jails and correctional facilities, which often are the largest employers of mental health clinicians. The reasons correctional institutions have become so reliant on psychiatric clinicians are vast and complex. Incarceration is tremendously destabilizing and can lead to the onset or relapse of mental illness – even in the most resilient patients. In addition, mental illness is undertreated in our communities yet inescapable in the confined settings of our jails. Furthermore, our mass incarceration problems have resulted in the most disenfranchised populations, including our patients with mental illness, becoming the targets of policies criminalizing poverty.²

To prevent furthering the process by which our correctional facilities have become the new asylums,³ law enforcement agencies have enacted a vast array of initiatives. Some include the placement of mental health staff within emergency response teams. Some include training police officers in how to talk to patients with mental illness as well as how to deescalate mental health crises. Most of the initiatives have one common goal: diverting patients with mental illness who are better treated in mental hospitals from going to jail. However, herein lies the problem: If mental illness is an explanation for only a small subset of criminal behavior, why is there a large need to divert patients with mental illness from jails to mental hospitals?

Over the past few years, psychiatrists in emergency departments have noted a concerning trend: an increase in referrals to mental hospitals by law enforcement for what appears to be a crime with only a vague or obscure link to mental illness. Most psychiatrists who regularly work in emergency departments will witness many examples. Some might be fairly benign: “They were going to arrest me for trespassing; I was yelling at a coffee shop. But when I told them that I had run out of meds, they brought me here instead.”

However, some stories are more chilling, including the case of an older male who had made threats while shooting his gun in the air and was brought to the emergency department because, as the police officer told us, “I think that he is just depressed; you guys can keep him safe till he is better.”

We applaud society’s desire to reduce the criminalization of mental illness. We think that psychiatry should be deeply involved in the attempts to resolve this problem. Furthermore, we are cognizant that the number of patients with mental illness unnecessarily imprisoned as a result of prosecutorial zealousness is a larger problem than criminals inappropriately brought to mental hospitals. However, we also are aware of the limitation of psychiatric hospitals in solving nonpsychiatric problems.

If mental illness (for the most part) does not cause violence, then when patients with or without mental illness commit a violent act, the response (for the most part) should not be a psychiatric one. Recent studies have demonstrated the need to examine criminogenic needs before psychiatric ones when attempting to reduce recidivism in all offenders, including those with mental illnesses.⁴ The emphasis on addressing psychiatric needs over criminogenic ones is misguided and not based on evidence. Yet, we appreciate the complexity of those questions and of individual cases.

Substance use disorders are emblematic of this problem. Psychiatry has now communicated the position that substance use disorders are mental illness and not a moral failing. However, are the crimes committed by individuals with substance use disorders, whether in a state of intoxication or driven by the cycles of addiction, the blameless result of mental illness? The legal system struggles with this question, trying to determine when addiction-related crimes should be referred to a diversion program or treated as a straightforward criminal prosecution. Those who favor diversion for addiction can point out that many criminal acts are associated with mitigating factors that are no less valid than is addiction.

However, those mitigating factors, such as poverty, childhood deprivation, or a violence-infused sociological milieu, cannot be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As such, if those factors alone were considered, no diversion would be offered by the courts. There also can be unforeseen consequences to this bias for diversion or criminal prosecution. Violent outbursts are a recognized part of PTSD in veterans. Psychiatrists who work at Veterans Affairs can be faced with the diagnosis of PTSD being used as an excuse for violent behavior, which may, at some level be valid, but which can be dangerous in that labeling a patient with that diagnosis might lower the barriers to violent behavior by providing a ready-made explanation already internalized by the patient through unspoken, sociocultural norms.

With the awareness of the complex nature of the intersectionality of mental illness and criminality, we recommend improvements to current diversion programs. As diversion programs rightfully continue to expand across the country, we likely will see an increase in the number of referrals by police officers to our emergency departments. Some of the referrals will be considered “inappropriate” after thorough and thoughtful clinical evaluation by emergency psychiatrists. The inappropriateness might be secondary to an absence of active symptoms, an absence of correlation between the illness and the offense, or a more urgent criminogenic need.

When faced with someone who will not benefit from diversion to a psychiatric emergency department, psychiatrists should have the tools to revert the person back into the legal system. Those tools could come in many forms – law enforcement liaison, prosecution liaison, or simply the presence of officers who are mandated to wait for the approval of the clinician prior to dismissing legal charges. Whatever the solution might be for any particular locale, policy makers should not wait for adverse events to realize the potential pitfalls of the important work being done in developing our country’s diversion programs.

References

1. Swanson JW et al. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: Bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Ann Epidemiol. 2015 May;25(5):366-76.

2. Ehrenreich B. “How America criminalized poverty.” The Guardian. 2011 Aug 10.

3. Roth A. “Prisons are the new asylums.” The Atlantic. 2018 April.

4. Latessa EJ et al. “What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism.” New York: Routledge, 2015.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship.

Despite popular belief, the absence of a strong link between mental illness and violence has been well studied and established. In summary, in a small subset of patients, mental illness provides a minor increase in the risk of committing violence.¹

In part as a result of this research, police departments across the country have established programs and protocols to divert patients with mental illness out of the legal system and into mental hospitals. Instead of accepting the common refrain that mental illness is the explanation and best predictor of all atrocious behaviors, police departments have correctly referred patients with mental illness to mental hospitals. We commend those initiatives and encourage their adoption in all locales. Yet, to safeguard such programs, we would like to warn of a potential pitfall and offer possible remedies.

Having worked in both correctional and clinical settings, we are saddened by the similar nature of the work with respect to the management of mental illness. It should defy logic to assume the need for mental health care in our jails is in any way comparable to the one in mental hospitals. However, we have grown accustomed to seeing large numbers of our most vulnerable patients with severe mental illness accumulating in our jails and correctional facilities, which often are the largest employers of mental health clinicians. The reasons correctional institutions have become so reliant on psychiatric clinicians are vast and complex. Incarceration is tremendously destabilizing and can lead to the onset or relapse of mental illness – even in the most resilient patients. In addition, mental illness is undertreated in our communities yet inescapable in the confined settings of our jails. Furthermore, our mass incarceration problems have resulted in the most disenfranchised populations, including our patients with mental illness, becoming the targets of policies criminalizing poverty.²

To prevent furthering the process by which our correctional facilities have become the new asylums,³ law enforcement agencies have enacted a vast array of initiatives. Some include the placement of mental health staff within emergency response teams. Some include training police officers in how to talk to patients with mental illness as well as how to deescalate mental health crises. Most of the initiatives have one common goal: diverting patients with mental illness who are better treated in mental hospitals from going to jail. However, herein lies the problem: If mental illness is an explanation for only a small subset of criminal behavior, why is there a large need to divert patients with mental illness from jails to mental hospitals?

Over the past few years, psychiatrists in emergency departments have noted a concerning trend: an increase in referrals to mental hospitals by law enforcement for what appears to be a crime with only a vague or obscure link to mental illness. Most psychiatrists who regularly work in emergency departments will witness many examples. Some might be fairly benign: “They were going to arrest me for trespassing; I was yelling at a coffee shop. But when I told them that I had run out of meds, they brought me here instead.”

However, some stories are more chilling, including the case of an older male who had made threats while shooting his gun in the air and was brought to the emergency department because, as the police officer told us, “I think that he is just depressed; you guys can keep him safe till he is better.”

We applaud society’s desire to reduce the criminalization of mental illness. We think that psychiatry should be deeply involved in the attempts to resolve this problem. Furthermore, we are cognizant that the number of patients with mental illness unnecessarily imprisoned as a result of prosecutorial zealousness is a larger problem than criminals inappropriately brought to mental hospitals. However, we also are aware of the limitation of psychiatric hospitals in solving nonpsychiatric problems.

If mental illness (for the most part) does not cause violence, then when patients with or without mental illness commit a violent act, the response (for the most part) should not be a psychiatric one. Recent studies have demonstrated the need to examine criminogenic needs before psychiatric ones when attempting to reduce recidivism in all offenders, including those with mental illnesses.⁴ The emphasis on addressing psychiatric needs over criminogenic ones is misguided and not based on evidence. Yet, we appreciate the complexity of those questions and of individual cases.

Substance use disorders are emblematic of this problem. Psychiatry has now communicated the position that substance use disorders are mental illness and not a moral failing. However, are the crimes committed by individuals with substance use disorders, whether in a state of intoxication or driven by the cycles of addiction, the blameless result of mental illness? The legal system struggles with this question, trying to determine when addiction-related crimes should be referred to a diversion program or treated as a straightforward criminal prosecution. Those who favor diversion for addiction can point out that many criminal acts are associated with mitigating factors that are no less valid than is addiction.

However, those mitigating factors, such as poverty, childhood deprivation, or a violence-infused sociological milieu, cannot be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As such, if those factors alone were considered, no diversion would be offered by the courts. There also can be unforeseen consequences to this bias for diversion or criminal prosecution. Violent outbursts are a recognized part of PTSD in veterans. Psychiatrists who work at Veterans Affairs can be faced with the diagnosis of PTSD being used as an excuse for violent behavior, which may, at some level be valid, but which can be dangerous in that labeling a patient with that diagnosis might lower the barriers to violent behavior by providing a ready-made explanation already internalized by the patient through unspoken, sociocultural norms.

With the awareness of the complex nature of the intersectionality of mental illness and criminality, we recommend improvements to current diversion programs. As diversion programs rightfully continue to expand across the country, we likely will see an increase in the number of referrals by police officers to our emergency departments. Some of the referrals will be considered “inappropriate” after thorough and thoughtful clinical evaluation by emergency psychiatrists. The inappropriateness might be secondary to an absence of active symptoms, an absence of correlation between the illness and the offense, or a more urgent criminogenic need.

When faced with someone who will not benefit from diversion to a psychiatric emergency department, psychiatrists should have the tools to revert the person back into the legal system. Those tools could come in many forms – law enforcement liaison, prosecution liaison, or simply the presence of officers who are mandated to wait for the approval of the clinician prior to dismissing legal charges. Whatever the solution might be for any particular locale, policy makers should not wait for adverse events to realize the potential pitfalls of the important work being done in developing our country’s diversion programs.

References

1. Swanson JW et al. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: Bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Ann Epidemiol. 2015 May;25(5):366-76.

2. Ehrenreich B. “How America criminalized poverty.” The Guardian. 2011 Aug 10.

3. Roth A. “Prisons are the new asylums.” The Atlantic. 2018 April.

4. Latessa EJ et al. “What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism.” New York: Routledge, 2015.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship.

Despite popular belief, the absence of a strong link between mental illness and violence has been well studied and established. In summary, in a small subset of patients, mental illness provides a minor increase in the risk of committing violence.¹

In part as a result of this research, police departments across the country have established programs and protocols to divert patients with mental illness out of the legal system and into mental hospitals. Instead of accepting the common refrain that mental illness is the explanation and best predictor of all atrocious behaviors, police departments have correctly referred patients with mental illness to mental hospitals. We commend those initiatives and encourage their adoption in all locales. Yet, to safeguard such programs, we would like to warn of a potential pitfall and offer possible remedies.

Having worked in both correctional and clinical settings, we are saddened by the similar nature of the work with respect to the management of mental illness. It should defy logic to assume the need for mental health care in our jails is in any way comparable to the one in mental hospitals. However, we have grown accustomed to seeing large numbers of our most vulnerable patients with severe mental illness accumulating in our jails and correctional facilities, which often are the largest employers of mental health clinicians. The reasons correctional institutions have become so reliant on psychiatric clinicians are vast and complex. Incarceration is tremendously destabilizing and can lead to the onset or relapse of mental illness – even in the most resilient patients. In addition, mental illness is undertreated in our communities yet inescapable in the confined settings of our jails. Furthermore, our mass incarceration problems have resulted in the most disenfranchised populations, including our patients with mental illness, becoming the targets of policies criminalizing poverty.²

To prevent furthering the process by which our correctional facilities have become the new asylums,³ law enforcement agencies have enacted a vast array of initiatives. Some include the placement of mental health staff within emergency response teams. Some include training police officers in how to talk to patients with mental illness as well as how to deescalate mental health crises. Most of the initiatives have one common goal: diverting patients with mental illness who are better treated in mental hospitals from going to jail. However, herein lies the problem: If mental illness is an explanation for only a small subset of criminal behavior, why is there a large need to divert patients with mental illness from jails to mental hospitals?

Over the past few years, psychiatrists in emergency departments have noted a concerning trend: an increase in referrals to mental hospitals by law enforcement for what appears to be a crime with only a vague or obscure link to mental illness. Most psychiatrists who regularly work in emergency departments will witness many examples. Some might be fairly benign: “They were going to arrest me for trespassing; I was yelling at a coffee shop. But when I told them that I had run out of meds, they brought me here instead.”

However, some stories are more chilling, including the case of an older male who had made threats while shooting his gun in the air and was brought to the emergency department because, as the police officer told us, “I think that he is just depressed; you guys can keep him safe till he is better.”

We applaud society’s desire to reduce the criminalization of mental illness. We think that psychiatry should be deeply involved in the attempts to resolve this problem. Furthermore, we are cognizant that the number of patients with mental illness unnecessarily imprisoned as a result of prosecutorial zealousness is a larger problem than criminals inappropriately brought to mental hospitals. However, we also are aware of the limitation of psychiatric hospitals in solving nonpsychiatric problems.

If mental illness (for the most part) does not cause violence, then when patients with or without mental illness commit a violent act, the response (for the most part) should not be a psychiatric one. Recent studies have demonstrated the need to examine criminogenic needs before psychiatric ones when attempting to reduce recidivism in all offenders, including those with mental illnesses.⁴ The emphasis on addressing psychiatric needs over criminogenic ones is misguided and not based on evidence. Yet, we appreciate the complexity of those questions and of individual cases.

Substance use disorders are emblematic of this problem. Psychiatry has now communicated the position that substance use disorders are mental illness and not a moral failing. However, are the crimes committed by individuals with substance use disorders, whether in a state of intoxication or driven by the cycles of addiction, the blameless result of mental illness? The legal system struggles with this question, trying to determine when addiction-related crimes should be referred to a diversion program or treated as a straightforward criminal prosecution. Those who favor diversion for addiction can point out that many criminal acts are associated with mitigating factors that are no less valid than is addiction.

However, those mitigating factors, such as poverty, childhood deprivation, or a violence-infused sociological milieu, cannot be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. As such, if those factors alone were considered, no diversion would be offered by the courts. There also can be unforeseen consequences to this bias for diversion or criminal prosecution. Violent outbursts are a recognized part of PTSD in veterans. Psychiatrists who work at Veterans Affairs can be faced with the diagnosis of PTSD being used as an excuse for violent behavior, which may, at some level be valid, but which can be dangerous in that labeling a patient with that diagnosis might lower the barriers to violent behavior by providing a ready-made explanation already internalized by the patient through unspoken, sociocultural norms.

With the awareness of the complex nature of the intersectionality of mental illness and criminality, we recommend improvements to current diversion programs. As diversion programs rightfully continue to expand across the country, we likely will see an increase in the number of referrals by police officers to our emergency departments. Some of the referrals will be considered “inappropriate” after thorough and thoughtful clinical evaluation by emergency psychiatrists. The inappropriateness might be secondary to an absence of active symptoms, an absence of correlation between the illness and the offense, or a more urgent criminogenic need.

When faced with someone who will not benefit from diversion to a psychiatric emergency department, psychiatrists should have the tools to revert the person back into the legal system. Those tools could come in many forms – law enforcement liaison, prosecution liaison, or simply the presence of officers who are mandated to wait for the approval of the clinician prior to dismissing legal charges. Whatever the solution might be for any particular locale, policy makers should not wait for adverse events to realize the potential pitfalls of the important work being done in developing our country’s diversion programs.

References

1. Swanson JW et al. Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: Bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Ann Epidemiol. 2015 May;25(5):366-76.

2. Ehrenreich B. “How America criminalized poverty.” The Guardian. 2011 Aug 10.

3. Roth A. “Prisons are the new asylums.” The Atlantic. 2018 April.

4. Latessa EJ et al. “What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism.” New York: Routledge, 2015.
 

Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Lehman is an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He also is the course director for the UCSD third-year medical student psychiatry clerkship.

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

I read with cautious optimism the Diversity Pledge and No–All Male Panel Policy recently announced by the Lancet Group.¹ This initiative comes at a crucial time, on the heels of a renewed interest and attention to gender inequities in medicine.

Despite 50-year-old federal legislation mandating that men and women receive equal compensation for equal work, pay inequities persist in all aspects of the workforce and medicine is no exception. In 2018, the American College of Physicians published a position paper acknowledging that, despite an increase in women in the active physician workforce and training positions, our numbers remain disproportionately low in leadership positions, with a mediocre track record for career advancement.² Inadequate mentorship, discrimination, gender bias, imposter syndrome and a lack of work-life integration have all been cited as contributing to the problem.

Consensus and commitment statements are important first steps in legitimizing a problem, but they do not always engender change. They run the risk of creating an “illusion of fairness” that lulls us into a sense of complacency that change is coming and yet it never does. This is why the Lancet Group’s pledge is so remarkable in its scope. Less than a year after the timely ACP position paper, the Lancet Group published a theme issue addressing the systematic concerns surrounding gender bias in medicine.

Recognizing that publications are prime currency in medicine, the Lancet Group has declared its commitment to increase the representation of women, minorities, and underrepresented geographic areas in editorial boards, peer review, and authorship. Since their #LancetWomen issue, 8 of their 18 journals have refreshed their editorial boards to include at least 50% female membership, with a goal of all 18 journals achieving this landmark by year’s end. That this change is being catapulted by a major publishing group suggests that a necessary cultural transformation is underway.

Today, women are entering the medical field in equal numbers to men. While some may argue that we have achieved gender diversity in medicine, we must not confuse this with gender equity, which remains a distant goal. This is a ripe time in medicine. We have momentum and an opportunity for change.

In an editorial comment to the ACP position paper, Molly Carnes, MD, drew an analogy to the Surgeon General’s report in 1964, which announced that smoking was detrimental to health. The report legitimized the already overwhelming evidence that smoking negatively impacted clinical outcomes and it served as a trigger to propel change.³ Similarly, we hope the ACP position has legitimized the research highlighting gender disparities in medicine and that the Lancet Group’s initiative is among the first of many changes to come.

This change must be embraced and executed by leadership across medical schools, universities, and professional societies. We must collectively pursue interventions and solutions to the multifaceted problem of gender inequity. After all, women have become an integral part of the medical workforce and we all need to work together to ensure both genders have sustainable careers.

Dr. Sosa is a benign hematologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. Her research interests are in thromboembolic disease, with a focus in racial and gender disparities.

References

1. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10; 394(10197): 452-3.

2. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):721-3.

3. Ann Intern Med. 2018 May 15;168(10):741-3.

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

I wear a suit every day to work. I count the time between shifts in months, not days. Rather than looking for subtle diagnostic clues hidden in clinical information, I find myself up to my elbows in performance and financial data. Instead of meetings complicated by challenging family dynamics, I spend my time calming the waters between clinical departments that each feel slighted.

And yet, when people ask me what I do, I do not say I am a health system CEO. Rather, I am a hospitalist. I say it, not out of habit, but with pride and clear intention. Almost 20 years ago, I had to explain to my parents what a hospitalist was as I made the transition from primary care doctor to hospitalist. I told them that hospitalists take care of sick people who are in the hospital, but also are charged with making the hospital a better place to take care of people. I hope that in some small way, in every role I have had over the past 20 years as a hospitalist, I have been able to do that.

While the small changes we can all make every day are important, massive changes to health care, hospitals, and providers are coming. The forces driving these changes are manifold, complex, and powerful. Individual hospitalists, hospital groups, and hospitals will be challenged to keep up with responding to these changes. I hope, though, that our field, hospital medicine, will not be sitting there, waiting for the changes to come, but will instead be one of the forces for change.

I also believe that hospital medicine and health care delivery systems should drive the change in a coordinated and collaborative partnership. A partnership not built on self-advocacy but one in which we remember why we exist – to take care of people. A force for change that preserves the essential, evolves what needs improvement, and revolutionizes the archaic.

Partnerships between hospitalist groups and health care administration will always face the day-to-day challenges of balancing the need for resources with the ability to provide them, agreeing on how to measure and assess quality, and aligning rewards with priorities. However, by working together in venues that allow us to think beyond the day-to-day issues, we in hospital medicine will be leaders in the change that is coming. I believe that today, the Society of Hospital Medicine must be one of those venues. Through its committees, meetings, advocacy, publications, and most importantly, members, SHM will continue to shape the future of care delivery in this country and beyond.

SHM has been my professional home for almost 20 years, helping me think about how to make the hospital a better place to take care of people. Recent examples of SHM and its members partnering in this area include advocacy work to improve alternative payment models, such as Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), as well as educational efforts for its members on how to navigate the current rules around MACRA.

For many years, SHM has been the leader in professional organizations for leading the way on quality improvement. Through the Center for Quality Improvement, SHM not only offers robust educational tools to better enable members to lead efforts at their home institutions but also has led multi-institutional efforts to reduce harm that have been recognized nationally for their impact.

As we move further down the path from volume to value toward population health, the SHM Board will be sure that the society continues to be a leader for both its members and the health system at large as we face these changes. We have the opportunity in front of us to collectively embrace and create the changes coming toward us with that shared purpose of making wherever it is that we care for people better places to provide that care. How could one not be proud to say, with intent, “I am a hospitalist,” regardless of what it is that brings each of us to SHM.
 

Dr. Whelan is CEO of Banner–University Medical Center Tucson (Ariz.) and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

As the summer draws to a close and I have finished my 20th road trip with my three children who frequently complain of “being too hot” or that the “sun is in my eyes” while in the car, I would like to raise attention to the need for sun protection for all passengers in cars. Sun protection in the car is almost always neglected, particularly for passengers. As thoughtful parents, we lather our kids with sunscreen before going to the pool or beach, but do we really remember to do this, or to provide sunglasses before embarking on a 5-hour car ride? Many people do not. We must raise awareness of the risk of UV light in cars, and take better care of both our children and ourselves.

anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Windshield glass is federally regulated to allow in a maximum amount of light for visibility, but has no requirements for sun protection. Many people do not understand the difference between UVA and UVB protection, let alone that UVB radiation is blocked by the window glass, but UVA radiation is not, and reaches the skin and eyes through glass. By law, windshields must be made of laminated glass, which includes two 2.1-mm layers of glass separated by a 0.8-mm piece of plastic. The glass is made to break easily upon impact and the plastic then stretches to absorb the impact. The thin layer of plastic also helps windshields absorb nearly all of the sun’s UVA and UVB rays. Sunroofs also contain UV-protective technology, which blocks UVA and UVB radiation while also keeping the car cool and protecting against direct sun exposure. However, rear windows do not offer the same protection.

Side and rear windows are made of a cheaper tempered glass that does not include a plastic layer, thereby offering no UVA protection. In a study by Butler et al. reviewing 900 head and neck cancers, 53% were found on the left side, and those who spent more hours driving each week had a higher chance of getting a left-side skin cancer (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Dec;63[6]:1006-10). Many automakers have not helped this problem; while there is higher-SPF glass that can be used, it is more costly for automobile manufacturers – and ultimately for consumers. A cheaper and more practical alternative is a UV film that can be applied to the glass; these films both improve UV protection and cool the car. In addition to providing sun protection, it can be assumed that the subsequent reduction of temperature within a car decreases the usage of air conditioners, thus improving both fuel economy and the environment.

Aftermarket window tinting and UV films can also be applied by glass-tinting companies and auto dealers for $150-$200. Companies like Solar Gard, LLUMAr, and 3M offer window films that can block UV rays. While these are available, the legal allowable tint limit varies from state to state. Visible light transmission (VLT) is the measurement of the percent of visible light that gets through a car’s window. The lower the VLT, the darker the tint. Most states prohibit less than 50% VLT for the driver and front passenger window, and 35% for the rear passenger, side, and rear windows.


To mitigate this, I offer patients with severe photo-dermitides a letter of medical necessity to the DMV to allow a higher percentage of tinting and recommend that they get aftermarket UV-protective films or tints on their vehicles. Regardless of whether higher tints are an option for them, sun protection of the skin and eyes is recommended for all passengers. Sunscreen with broad-spectrum coverage is recommended regardless of how long a car ride might be, and it is recommended that individuals keep the sunroof closed while driving for added UV protection. The use of polarized sunglasses for adults and children is also recommended to avoid UV damage to the eyes. Sunscreens and glasses with protection against blue light are also recommended for passengers who stare at screens and tablets during long car rides.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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.

Teaching a new resident can be a beautiful and exasperating experience. Recently, a stiff-white-coat family medicine resident showed up eager for his first day in dermatology. Working with him reminded me how exciting the journey is from resident to attending. It also reminded me how slow residents are – we’re 10 minutes into a visit and not yet done injecting anesthesia. A simple biopsy and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma would take 3 minutes – easy, rote, like driving home and being surprised when you arrive. But this task is making my resident so fraught with fear he’s barely moving. He won’t be crawling for long; his journey from novice to confident physician will be quick. Like a student pilot learning to fly, in a few hundred hours he’ll be flying solo.

After a year, most residents are adept, exuding the temerity of an attending. But as any practicing physician knows, medicine can make cowards of us all without warning. An experienced pilot facing an unexpected gusty 25-knot crosswind landing can find himself or herself a trembling beginner just as an excellent clinician can be overwhelmed facing an unexpectedly sick patient.

Not long after my visiting resident, I was back to my own packed clinic. With one swoop of a dermablade, I intended to quickly extirpate a keratoacanthoma on the back of an elderly man’s hand. I hardly had to think about it. However, when I lifted the blade, dark blood pooled where a dorsal saphenous vein used to live. After much electrodesiccation (and sutures) this particular biopsy was safely landed. But it wasn’t without a bit of blood loss and inconvenience for the patient. What might I have done differently? Injected 5-fluorouracil instead? Done an incisional biopsy? Used a different blade? More importantly, what will I do next time?


To avoid adverse outcomes, it might seem like the best strategy is to avoid deteriorating conditions, whether flying or in clinic. That would be a mistake. The journey from apprehension to mastery must pass through discomfort. It is only by working through unease and successfully managing complications that expertise is forged. Our days are mostly routine and the longer the period without adversity, the greater the risk of complacency. Consider seeking difficulty once in awhile and learn how to work through it. No pilot wants to be in a situation he or she hasn’t practiced managing.

For some physicians and residents, an unexpected complication or adverse outcome can make them apprehensive and defensive. I’ve seen doctors choose not to treat complicated diseases or dire lesions because of a previous bad experience or adverse outcome. It is sometimes appropriate to transfer a patient to a different service, but as physicians, it’s also our job to take care of our patient. When it’s your plane, you’ll have to land it.

Much later (or so it seemed), my resident finally finished the electrodesiccation and curettage. He had a look of relief knowing he has landed safely. I hope he realizes that this is a trip that he must take over and over again. One is never done learning to fly.

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

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

The history of abuse and genocide has its precursors in antiquity. A brief sketch of this history will provide some insights into the impact of intergenerational trauma and a rationale for the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in the United States and Canada, or Turtle Island, as the Indigenous People call it.

Such a review also will provide a partial explanation of why the suicide rate among non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native women increased by 139%¹ during 1999-2017 – a time when more Indigenous women were gaining access to law and medical school, as well as positions of authority in their tribes.

Church-, state-sanctioned transgressions

The psychological impact of our past history haunts us today. Papal bulletins – decrees from the pope – gave permission to Christian explorers to take land, wealth, and slaves from any nonbeliever. This permission was labeled the Doctrine of Discovery. It was incorporated into U.S. law in 1823, and by the Supreme Court case, Johnson v. M’intosh. It also provided rationale for the Indian Removal Act, which was passed on May 28, 1830, and signed into law by U.S. President Andrew Jackson. As a result of that law, Indigenous People were forced onto reservations, often removed from their traditional and sacred homelands. Many died during forced relocation.²

From the time of “discovery” by settlers until well into the 19th century, the U.S. governmental intent was genocide. It was manifest by the outright murder of Indigenous People, displacement from land, and the disruption of families when children were taken, put into boarding schools, and were forbidden to speak their language. Indigenous medicine people were killed or jailed for practicing their traditional ceremonies. Indigenous nations had their laws, languages, and agricultural practices denied them. Even today, they must practice U.S. law, adapt colonizing forms of land ownership, and engage in the economic practices of the dominant culture. The economic system currently in place rewards rape of the land and creates a trickle-up economy that keeps rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor. The economic system even gives corporations legal status as individuals, and, in some cases, is allowed to supersede the rights of Indigenous nations.

Today, the federal government still can appropriate land for minerals, pipelines,³ and even put indigenous land and water sovereignty at risk of contamination and pollution by mines established upstream.⁴ Most of those practices are repugnant to Indigenous nations. The Doctrine of Discovery established prior to 1492 is still alive and well on Turtle Island.

It is this background that denies the rights of Mother Earth, and this backdrop that, in turn, generalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous women. There are women today, who, against their will and knowledge, have been sterilized.⁵ There are cases in which women have been raped and beaten, and their perpetrators were never been brought to justice.⁶ There are jurisdictional issues in the federal law that keep non-native perpetrators from being punished for their actions on tribal sovereign land.

This history and those current practices affect Indigenous families. Historical trauma produces epigenetic changes⁷ that create more anxiety and depression. Families in which one or both parents were taken away have a harder time providing a loving, safe, addiction-free environment for their children. Children often have high scores on measurements of adverse childhood experiences and suffer PTSD. As psychiatrists, we have treated PTSD from residential and boarding school survivors, families with family members who were victims of being missing or murdered, and survivors of sexual abuse – both in the United States and Canada. According to the final Canadian report of the inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the murder rate for Indigenous women was 12 times that of non-Indigenous women.8

We assert that this combination of historical trauma and current social factors contributes to depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders that currently feed the rise in attempted and completed suicide. Less-than-optimal educational opportunities and unemployment, often above 10% on reservations,⁹ along with food insecurity, accentuate the settings in which women and girls live.

Women achieving despite challenges

Yet, Indigenous women are making great strides within their cultures and communities. For example, Indigenous women are leading language revitalization, and within their culture, are healers and carriers of knowledge. Many Indigenous women are doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers, poets, authors, and artists^.10 Voters in last year’s midterms elected two Native American women to the U.S. Congress. Often, however, those achievements within the Western culture come at a cost, and some might have difficulty balancing those roles with their traditional cultures.

Current societal pressures feed the rise of suicide. Santa Fe, N.M., is known for its affluence and reputation as a tricultural city of Anglos, Hispanics, and Native Americans, and yet, a recent health impact assessment survey of urban Indigenous families stated that food insecurity was the leading concern for those families. Unemployment on the Navajo Nation is above 50%.¹¹ The Indian Health Service (IHS) in the United States, which provides the majority of mental services to the Indigenous population, has identified mental health issues as the No. 1 health problem. However, only 7% of the IHS budget is allocated for mental health and substance abuse services. This represents an underfudging of services to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. In fact, there were only two psychiatrists per 100,000 people served by the IHS, which is one-seventh the number of psychiatrists available to the general population in the United States.¹²

Best practices for psychiatrists working with Indigenous women demands that we know the history, know how that history is still being manifest in subtle ways, and understand how such antiquated papal bulletins as the Doctrine of Discovery still operate to justify the taking and misuse of indigenous land. We must realize that the dominant economic systems, laws, and policing strategies are imposed on cultures that are sophisticated in their own right. This will then allow compassionate care with a level of understanding.

It also is critical to avoid stereotypes and misdiagnoses, and clinicians should realize that much of what is seen is not personality disorder but aspects of trauma and PTSD. ¹³

We can advocate at all levels, considering that the role of the federal government, the state, corporations, tribes, families, and provision of quality care to individuals can continue the positive collective advancement of women, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with suicide attempts.

We need to be sensitive to our patients and their risks of suicide. Treat suicidal ideation as the serious threat that it is. Address the depression, anxiety, PTSD, historical trauma, substance abuse, emotional dysregulation, and loss of relationship in persons with attachment disorders as serious and valid life events than can lead to serious consequences – including completed suicide.

Indigenous women are resilient, and the approach should be to also balance knowledge of those potential barriers with validating the feminine, and supporting the traditional roles of women and men that value women and children, and revere the matriarchs. Encouraging and supporting Indigenous resurgence of cultural practices and values is significant for positive outcomes for healing and wellness. Doing so can carry a greater meaning within Indigenous and First Nations society.
 

References

1. Curtin SC and H Hedegaard. Suicide rates for females and males by race and ethnicity: United States, 1999 and 2017. NCHS Health E-Stat. 2019.

2. Anderson GC. Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt America. Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

3. Rausch N. “Standing Rock, Morton County work to mend relationships post-DAPL protests.” Billingsgazette.com. Aug 10, 2019.

4. Roy A. “5 ways the government keeps Native Americans in poverty.” Forbes.com. Mar 13, 2014.

5. Blakemore E. “The little-known history of forced sterilization of Native American women.” JSTOR.org. Aug 25, 2016.

6. Bleir G and A Zoledziowski. “Murdered and missing Native American women challenge police and courts.” Publicintegrity.org. Aug 27, 2018.

7. Brockie TN et al. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs Res Prac. 2013;2013:410395.

8. “Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.” Vancouver: Privy Office. Jun 3, 2019.

9. Hagan S. “Where U.S. unemployment is still sky-high: Indian reservations.” Bloomberg.com. Apr 5, 2018.

10. Morin B. “Meet 10 Indigenous women who are making the world a better place.” Indian Country Today. Jul 1, 2019.

11. Fact sheet. Discovernavajo.com.

12. Sarche M and P Spicer. Poverty and health disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native children: Current knowledge and future prospects. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008 Jul 25;1136:126-36.

13. Lewis-Fernández R et al. Culture and psychiatric evaluation: Operationalizing cultural formulation for DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2014 Summer;77(2):130-54.
 

Dr. Roessel is a Navajo board-certified psychiatrist practicing in Santa Fe, N.M., working with the local Indigenous population. She has special expertise in cultural psychiatry; her childhood was spent growing up in the Navajo nation with her grandfather, who was a Navajo medicine man. Her psychiatric practice focuses on integrating Indigenous knowledge and principles. Dr. Roessel is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Neidhardt is a board-certified psychiatrist who lives in Santa Fe and has an integrative, holistic psychiatric practice that also specializes in trauma-focused therapy. He has provided care for Indigenous People in the Southwest United States and in Canada, and has worked with Navajo medicine people to develop training for mental health professionals with his wife, Dr. Mary Hasbah Roessel. Dr. Reinhardt is a life fellow of the APA.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

It has been 40 years since the first reported case of IgE-mediated natural rubber latex allergy, which was soon followed by a global epidemic of allergic and anaphylactic reactions.^1,2 Resolution came through insightful work in the 1990s that led to the removal of cornstarch powder and a switch to nonpowdered latex and synthetic examination gloves.² Also discovered during this period was the cross-reactivity of many patients to latex and various fruits. This column will briefly discuss the latex/fruit allergy syndrome, which should be considered in patients who are sensitive to various skincare products.

tookapic/Pixabay

Research substantiates reports

Blanco et al. conducted a prospective study in their outpatient clinic in 25 patients diagnosed with latex allergy, published in 1994.They used a clinical questionnaire, skin-prick tests, skin test with a latex extract, and identification of total and specific IgE to help ascertain clinical characteristics and cross-reactivity. Of the 23 women and 2 men in the study (mean age 33, plus or minus 9 years), 9 (36%) experienced latex-induced reactions characterized by systemic anaphylaxis. In 13 patients (52%), 42 food allergies were identified, and 23 included systemic anaphylaxis. Avocado (9), chestnut (9), banana (7), kiwi (5), and papaya (3) were the most common foods to cause hypersensitivities. The researchers concluded that their small study supported the reality of a “latex-fruit syndrome.”³

Another study aimed to characterize the cross-reactivity of latex and foods and evaluate clinical significance. Beezhold et al. examined 47 patients allergic to latex and 46 nonallergic controls. The investigators found immunologic reactivity to foods to be prevalent (33 latex-allergic patients and seven controls), with 27% of food skin-prick tests positive in the latex-allergic group. In addition, clinical symptoms were linked to 27% of positive skin-prick tests. Among the 17 patients who displayed clinical allergies to at least one food, 14 showed local sensitivity reactions, with anaphylaxis noted in 11. Avocado (53%), potato (40%), banana (38%), tomato (28%), chestnut (28%), and kiwi (17%) were the foods most frequently cited for provoking a skin test reaction. The authors observed extensive cross-reactivity between latex sensitivity and particular foods, with potatoes and tomatoes reported for the first time.⁴

In 1997, Brehler et al. studied serum samples from 136 patients whose immediate hypersensitivity to latex proteins was clinically observable and documented. The samples were assessed for IgE antibodies against several fruits, with fruit-specific IgE antibodies recorded in 69.1%. Radioallergosorbent (RAST) -inhibition tests yielded the recognition of cross-reacting IgE antibodies in latex and multiple fruit allergens: avocado, banana, chestnut, fig, kiwi, mango, melon, papaya, passion fruit, peach, pineapple, and tomato. The investigators recorded 112 intolerance reactions and noted that 42.5% of their patients reported allergic symptoms after consuming these fruits. Fruit-specific IgE antibodies were detected in only 32.1% of these patients, suggesting to the researchers that serologic tests were suboptimal in forecasting food hypersensitivities in patients who are allergic to latex.⁵

Cross-reactivity with banana

Mäkinen-Kiljunen studied 47 patients to investigate banana allergy in patients with latex allergy in 1994, measuring latex-, banana-, and pollen-specific (birch, timothy, and mugwort) IgE. Thirty-one patients were also given skin-prick tests with banana and were queried about reactions after consuming bananas. Of the 47 sera samples, latex RAST results were positive in 31 and banana RAST results in 26. RAST results from latex and banana were correlated (25 of the 31 latex RAST-positive samples were also banana RAST-positive), but not with pollen. Sixteen of the 31 patients who ate banana reported symptoms, and 11 of the 31 patients given the banana skin-prick test showed positive results. The author confirmed the cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies for latex and banana, identifying for the first time a structurally similar antigen/allergen as at least one antigen from banana fused with an antigen from latex in crossed-line immunoelectrophoresis.⁶

In 1998, Mikkola et al. investigated whether proteins similar to hevein, a major natural rubber latex allergen, are present in banana and account for cross-reactivity between these botanicals. Immunoblotting revealed that 9 of 15 sera from latex-allergic patients with IgE to hevein also bound to 32- and 33-kd banana proteins. Studies using ELISA [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay] showed that the common presentation of hypersensitivity to banana among patients allergic to latex could be attributed to cross-reacting IgE antibodies binding to epitopes in hevein and in the then-newly identified hevein-like endochitinase found in banana.⁷

Cross-reactivity with avocado

In response to reports of an association between allergy to natural rubber latex and avocado, Ahlroth et al. investigated cross-reactive proteins between natural rubber latex and avocado in 1995 by using skin-prick tests with fresh avocado on 11 patients and the sera of 18 patients with known latex allergy for IgE antibodies. Fourteen of the 18 sera were found to have IgE antibodies binding to 17 distinct avocado proteins, with multiple immunoblot experiments and skin-prick test results (positive in 7 of 11 patients) revealing marked immunologic cross-reactivity between latex and avocado.⁸

In 1998, Chen et al. set out to identify the cross-sensitizing allergen between latex and avocado, with hevein suspected. The researchers looked at sera samples from 118 health care workers allergic to latex and 78 patients with spina bifida who were allergic to latex. They noted a robust correlation between the prevalence of seropositive IgE antibodies to avocado in the presence of hevein-specific IgE antibodies in both groups. All members in the spina bifida group and 91 (73%) of the health care workers had positive IgE antibodies to hevein and high IgE values to avocado. Additional results supported the conclusion that sensitization to avocado in the majority of people allergic to latex is engendered by IgE-binding epitopes found in hevein.⁹

A year later, Diaz-Perales et al. considered the potential relevance of chitinases and complex glycans as factors in the then newly described latex/food syndrome, particularly in avocado, banana, and chestnuts. The investigators culled extracts from 20 various plant foods as well as latex. In immunoblot inhibition assays, the primary allergen and class I chitinase in avocado, Prs a 1, and the latex extract potently or completely blocked IgE binding by these constituents. Polyclonal antibodies to chitinases and sera from patients with latex/fruit allergy responded to reactive proteins of about 30-45 kd (putative class I chitinases) in chestnut, cherimoya, kiwi, mango, papaya, passion fruit, tomato, and wheat flour extracts. The glycans complex was deemed to be irrelevant in latex/fruit cross-reactivity, but the researchers found the putative class I chitinases to be notable players in the latex/fruit syndrome.¹⁰

According to Wagner and Breitender, anywhere from 30%-50% of people with known latex allergy also evince a related hypersensitivity or allergy to various plant-derived foods, with avocado, banana, chestnut, kiwi, peach, tomato, potato, and bell pepper among the foods most frequently linked to latex/fruit syndrome. They summarize that several plant defense proteins have been shown to be involved in the syndrome, with the most prominent, class I chitinases with an N-terminal hevein-like domain, having been found to cross-react with hevein (Hev b 6.02), a major IgE-binding allergen for individuals allergic to latex. A beta-1,3-glucanase, a key latex allergen, has also shown cross-reactivity with proteins of bell pepper, and another significant latex allergen, Hev b 7, a patatin-like protein, cross-reacts with its analogous protein in potato.¹¹

Conclusion

It is unknown whether latex allergy precedes or follows food allergy.11 The latex/food syndrome itself merits attention as a significant source of hypersensitivity to natural cosmeceutical ingredients. Dermatologists should be aware of the lengthy list of cross-reacting plant-derived products, particularly when it comes to reviewing topical product ingredients with susceptible or allergic patients. Latex-allergic patients may react to these natural ingredients in food or when topically applied to the skin.

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), and 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. Nutter AF. Br J Dermatol 1979 Nov;101(5):597-8.

2. Kelly KJ et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Sep-Oct;5(5):1212-16.

3. Blanco C et al. Ann Allergy. 1994 Oct;73(4):309-14.

4. Beezhold DH et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996 Apr;26(4):416-22.

5. Brehler R et al. Allergy. 1997 Apr;52(4):404-10.

6. Mäkinen-Kiljunen S. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994 Jun;93(6):990-6.

7. Mikkola JH et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Dec;102(6 Pt 1):1005-12.

8. Ahlroth M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995 Aug;96(2):167-73.

9. Chen Z et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Sep;102(3):476-81.

10. Diaz-Perales A et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):681-7.

11. Wagner S et al. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002 Nov;30(Pt 6):935-40.

It has been 40 years since the first reported case of IgE-mediated natural rubber latex allergy, which was soon followed by a global epidemic of allergic and anaphylactic reactions.^1,2 Resolution came through insightful work in the 1990s that led to the removal of cornstarch powder and a switch to nonpowdered latex and synthetic examination gloves.² Also discovered during this period was the cross-reactivity of many patients to latex and various fruits. This column will briefly discuss the latex/fruit allergy syndrome, which should be considered in patients who are sensitive to various skincare products.

tookapic/Pixabay

Research substantiates reports

Blanco et al. conducted a prospective study in their outpatient clinic in 25 patients diagnosed with latex allergy, published in 1994.They used a clinical questionnaire, skin-prick tests, skin test with a latex extract, and identification of total and specific IgE to help ascertain clinical characteristics and cross-reactivity. Of the 23 women and 2 men in the study (mean age 33, plus or minus 9 years), 9 (36%) experienced latex-induced reactions characterized by systemic anaphylaxis. In 13 patients (52%), 42 food allergies were identified, and 23 included systemic anaphylaxis. Avocado (9), chestnut (9), banana (7), kiwi (5), and papaya (3) were the most common foods to cause hypersensitivities. The researchers concluded that their small study supported the reality of a “latex-fruit syndrome.”³

Another study aimed to characterize the cross-reactivity of latex and foods and evaluate clinical significance. Beezhold et al. examined 47 patients allergic to latex and 46 nonallergic controls. The investigators found immunologic reactivity to foods to be prevalent (33 latex-allergic patients and seven controls), with 27% of food skin-prick tests positive in the latex-allergic group. In addition, clinical symptoms were linked to 27% of positive skin-prick tests. Among the 17 patients who displayed clinical allergies to at least one food, 14 showed local sensitivity reactions, with anaphylaxis noted in 11. Avocado (53%), potato (40%), banana (38%), tomato (28%), chestnut (28%), and kiwi (17%) were the foods most frequently cited for provoking a skin test reaction. The authors observed extensive cross-reactivity between latex sensitivity and particular foods, with potatoes and tomatoes reported for the first time.⁴

In 1997, Brehler et al. studied serum samples from 136 patients whose immediate hypersensitivity to latex proteins was clinically observable and documented. The samples were assessed for IgE antibodies against several fruits, with fruit-specific IgE antibodies recorded in 69.1%. Radioallergosorbent (RAST) -inhibition tests yielded the recognition of cross-reacting IgE antibodies in latex and multiple fruit allergens: avocado, banana, chestnut, fig, kiwi, mango, melon, papaya, passion fruit, peach, pineapple, and tomato. The investigators recorded 112 intolerance reactions and noted that 42.5% of their patients reported allergic symptoms after consuming these fruits. Fruit-specific IgE antibodies were detected in only 32.1% of these patients, suggesting to the researchers that serologic tests were suboptimal in forecasting food hypersensitivities in patients who are allergic to latex.⁵

Cross-reactivity with banana

Mäkinen-Kiljunen studied 47 patients to investigate banana allergy in patients with latex allergy in 1994, measuring latex-, banana-, and pollen-specific (birch, timothy, and mugwort) IgE. Thirty-one patients were also given skin-prick tests with banana and were queried about reactions after consuming bananas. Of the 47 sera samples, latex RAST results were positive in 31 and banana RAST results in 26. RAST results from latex and banana were correlated (25 of the 31 latex RAST-positive samples were also banana RAST-positive), but not with pollen. Sixteen of the 31 patients who ate banana reported symptoms, and 11 of the 31 patients given the banana skin-prick test showed positive results. The author confirmed the cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies for latex and banana, identifying for the first time a structurally similar antigen/allergen as at least one antigen from banana fused with an antigen from latex in crossed-line immunoelectrophoresis.⁶

In 1998, Mikkola et al. investigated whether proteins similar to hevein, a major natural rubber latex allergen, are present in banana and account for cross-reactivity between these botanicals. Immunoblotting revealed that 9 of 15 sera from latex-allergic patients with IgE to hevein also bound to 32- and 33-kd banana proteins. Studies using ELISA [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay] showed that the common presentation of hypersensitivity to banana among patients allergic to latex could be attributed to cross-reacting IgE antibodies binding to epitopes in hevein and in the then-newly identified hevein-like endochitinase found in banana.⁷

Cross-reactivity with avocado

In response to reports of an association between allergy to natural rubber latex and avocado, Ahlroth et al. investigated cross-reactive proteins between natural rubber latex and avocado in 1995 by using skin-prick tests with fresh avocado on 11 patients and the sera of 18 patients with known latex allergy for IgE antibodies. Fourteen of the 18 sera were found to have IgE antibodies binding to 17 distinct avocado proteins, with multiple immunoblot experiments and skin-prick test results (positive in 7 of 11 patients) revealing marked immunologic cross-reactivity between latex and avocado.⁸

In 1998, Chen et al. set out to identify the cross-sensitizing allergen between latex and avocado, with hevein suspected. The researchers looked at sera samples from 118 health care workers allergic to latex and 78 patients with spina bifida who were allergic to latex. They noted a robust correlation between the prevalence of seropositive IgE antibodies to avocado in the presence of hevein-specific IgE antibodies in both groups. All members in the spina bifida group and 91 (73%) of the health care workers had positive IgE antibodies to hevein and high IgE values to avocado. Additional results supported the conclusion that sensitization to avocado in the majority of people allergic to latex is engendered by IgE-binding epitopes found in hevein.⁹

A year later, Diaz-Perales et al. considered the potential relevance of chitinases and complex glycans as factors in the then newly described latex/food syndrome, particularly in avocado, banana, and chestnuts. The investigators culled extracts from 20 various plant foods as well as latex. In immunoblot inhibition assays, the primary allergen and class I chitinase in avocado, Prs a 1, and the latex extract potently or completely blocked IgE binding by these constituents. Polyclonal antibodies to chitinases and sera from patients with latex/fruit allergy responded to reactive proteins of about 30-45 kd (putative class I chitinases) in chestnut, cherimoya, kiwi, mango, papaya, passion fruit, tomato, and wheat flour extracts. The glycans complex was deemed to be irrelevant in latex/fruit cross-reactivity, but the researchers found the putative class I chitinases to be notable players in the latex/fruit syndrome.¹⁰

According to Wagner and Breitender, anywhere from 30%-50% of people with known latex allergy also evince a related hypersensitivity or allergy to various plant-derived foods, with avocado, banana, chestnut, kiwi, peach, tomato, potato, and bell pepper among the foods most frequently linked to latex/fruit syndrome. They summarize that several plant defense proteins have been shown to be involved in the syndrome, with the most prominent, class I chitinases with an N-terminal hevein-like domain, having been found to cross-react with hevein (Hev b 6.02), a major IgE-binding allergen for individuals allergic to latex. A beta-1,3-glucanase, a key latex allergen, has also shown cross-reactivity with proteins of bell pepper, and another significant latex allergen, Hev b 7, a patatin-like protein, cross-reacts with its analogous protein in potato.¹¹

Conclusion

It is unknown whether latex allergy precedes or follows food allergy.11 The latex/food syndrome itself merits attention as a significant source of hypersensitivity to natural cosmeceutical ingredients. Dermatologists should be aware of the lengthy list of cross-reacting plant-derived products, particularly when it comes to reviewing topical product ingredients with susceptible or allergic patients. Latex-allergic patients may react to these natural ingredients in food or when topically applied to the skin.

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), and 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. Nutter AF. Br J Dermatol 1979 Nov;101(5):597-8.

2. Kelly KJ et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Sep-Oct;5(5):1212-16.

3. Blanco C et al. Ann Allergy. 1994 Oct;73(4):309-14.

4. Beezhold DH et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996 Apr;26(4):416-22.

5. Brehler R et al. Allergy. 1997 Apr;52(4):404-10.

6. Mäkinen-Kiljunen S. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994 Jun;93(6):990-6.

7. Mikkola JH et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Dec;102(6 Pt 1):1005-12.

8. Ahlroth M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995 Aug;96(2):167-73.

9. Chen Z et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Sep;102(3):476-81.

10. Diaz-Perales A et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):681-7.

11. Wagner S et al. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002 Nov;30(Pt 6):935-40.

It has been 40 years since the first reported case of IgE-mediated natural rubber latex allergy, which was soon followed by a global epidemic of allergic and anaphylactic reactions.^1,2 Resolution came through insightful work in the 1990s that led to the removal of cornstarch powder and a switch to nonpowdered latex and synthetic examination gloves.² Also discovered during this period was the cross-reactivity of many patients to latex and various fruits. This column will briefly discuss the latex/fruit allergy syndrome, which should be considered in patients who are sensitive to various skincare products.

tookapic/Pixabay

Research substantiates reports

Blanco et al. conducted a prospective study in their outpatient clinic in 25 patients diagnosed with latex allergy, published in 1994.They used a clinical questionnaire, skin-prick tests, skin test with a latex extract, and identification of total and specific IgE to help ascertain clinical characteristics and cross-reactivity. Of the 23 women and 2 men in the study (mean age 33, plus or minus 9 years), 9 (36%) experienced latex-induced reactions characterized by systemic anaphylaxis. In 13 patients (52%), 42 food allergies were identified, and 23 included systemic anaphylaxis. Avocado (9), chestnut (9), banana (7), kiwi (5), and papaya (3) were the most common foods to cause hypersensitivities. The researchers concluded that their small study supported the reality of a “latex-fruit syndrome.”³

Another study aimed to characterize the cross-reactivity of latex and foods and evaluate clinical significance. Beezhold et al. examined 47 patients allergic to latex and 46 nonallergic controls. The investigators found immunologic reactivity to foods to be prevalent (33 latex-allergic patients and seven controls), with 27% of food skin-prick tests positive in the latex-allergic group. In addition, clinical symptoms were linked to 27% of positive skin-prick tests. Among the 17 patients who displayed clinical allergies to at least one food, 14 showed local sensitivity reactions, with anaphylaxis noted in 11. Avocado (53%), potato (40%), banana (38%), tomato (28%), chestnut (28%), and kiwi (17%) were the foods most frequently cited for provoking a skin test reaction. The authors observed extensive cross-reactivity between latex sensitivity and particular foods, with potatoes and tomatoes reported for the first time.⁴

In 1997, Brehler et al. studied serum samples from 136 patients whose immediate hypersensitivity to latex proteins was clinically observable and documented. The samples were assessed for IgE antibodies against several fruits, with fruit-specific IgE antibodies recorded in 69.1%. Radioallergosorbent (RAST) -inhibition tests yielded the recognition of cross-reacting IgE antibodies in latex and multiple fruit allergens: avocado, banana, chestnut, fig, kiwi, mango, melon, papaya, passion fruit, peach, pineapple, and tomato. The investigators recorded 112 intolerance reactions and noted that 42.5% of their patients reported allergic symptoms after consuming these fruits. Fruit-specific IgE antibodies were detected in only 32.1% of these patients, suggesting to the researchers that serologic tests were suboptimal in forecasting food hypersensitivities in patients who are allergic to latex.⁵

Cross-reactivity with banana

Mäkinen-Kiljunen studied 47 patients to investigate banana allergy in patients with latex allergy in 1994, measuring latex-, banana-, and pollen-specific (birch, timothy, and mugwort) IgE. Thirty-one patients were also given skin-prick tests with banana and were queried about reactions after consuming bananas. Of the 47 sera samples, latex RAST results were positive in 31 and banana RAST results in 26. RAST results from latex and banana were correlated (25 of the 31 latex RAST-positive samples were also banana RAST-positive), but not with pollen. Sixteen of the 31 patients who ate banana reported symptoms, and 11 of the 31 patients given the banana skin-prick test showed positive results. The author confirmed the cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies for latex and banana, identifying for the first time a structurally similar antigen/allergen as at least one antigen from banana fused with an antigen from latex in crossed-line immunoelectrophoresis.⁶

In 1998, Mikkola et al. investigated whether proteins similar to hevein, a major natural rubber latex allergen, are present in banana and account for cross-reactivity between these botanicals. Immunoblotting revealed that 9 of 15 sera from latex-allergic patients with IgE to hevein also bound to 32- and 33-kd banana proteins. Studies using ELISA [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay] showed that the common presentation of hypersensitivity to banana among patients allergic to latex could be attributed to cross-reacting IgE antibodies binding to epitopes in hevein and in the then-newly identified hevein-like endochitinase found in banana.⁷

Cross-reactivity with avocado

In response to reports of an association between allergy to natural rubber latex and avocado, Ahlroth et al. investigated cross-reactive proteins between natural rubber latex and avocado in 1995 by using skin-prick tests with fresh avocado on 11 patients and the sera of 18 patients with known latex allergy for IgE antibodies. Fourteen of the 18 sera were found to have IgE antibodies binding to 17 distinct avocado proteins, with multiple immunoblot experiments and skin-prick test results (positive in 7 of 11 patients) revealing marked immunologic cross-reactivity between latex and avocado.⁸

In 1998, Chen et al. set out to identify the cross-sensitizing allergen between latex and avocado, with hevein suspected. The researchers looked at sera samples from 118 health care workers allergic to latex and 78 patients with spina bifida who were allergic to latex. They noted a robust correlation between the prevalence of seropositive IgE antibodies to avocado in the presence of hevein-specific IgE antibodies in both groups. All members in the spina bifida group and 91 (73%) of the health care workers had positive IgE antibodies to hevein and high IgE values to avocado. Additional results supported the conclusion that sensitization to avocado in the majority of people allergic to latex is engendered by IgE-binding epitopes found in hevein.⁹

A year later, Diaz-Perales et al. considered the potential relevance of chitinases and complex glycans as factors in the then newly described latex/food syndrome, particularly in avocado, banana, and chestnuts. The investigators culled extracts from 20 various plant foods as well as latex. In immunoblot inhibition assays, the primary allergen and class I chitinase in avocado, Prs a 1, and the latex extract potently or completely blocked IgE binding by these constituents. Polyclonal antibodies to chitinases and sera from patients with latex/fruit allergy responded to reactive proteins of about 30-45 kd (putative class I chitinases) in chestnut, cherimoya, kiwi, mango, papaya, passion fruit, tomato, and wheat flour extracts. The glycans complex was deemed to be irrelevant in latex/fruit cross-reactivity, but the researchers found the putative class I chitinases to be notable players in the latex/fruit syndrome.¹⁰

According to Wagner and Breitender, anywhere from 30%-50% of people with known latex allergy also evince a related hypersensitivity or allergy to various plant-derived foods, with avocado, banana, chestnut, kiwi, peach, tomato, potato, and bell pepper among the foods most frequently linked to latex/fruit syndrome. They summarize that several plant defense proteins have been shown to be involved in the syndrome, with the most prominent, class I chitinases with an N-terminal hevein-like domain, having been found to cross-react with hevein (Hev b 6.02), a major IgE-binding allergen for individuals allergic to latex. A beta-1,3-glucanase, a key latex allergen, has also shown cross-reactivity with proteins of bell pepper, and another significant latex allergen, Hev b 7, a patatin-like protein, cross-reacts with its analogous protein in potato.¹¹

Conclusion

It is unknown whether latex allergy precedes or follows food allergy.11 The latex/food syndrome itself merits attention as a significant source of hypersensitivity to natural cosmeceutical ingredients. Dermatologists should be aware of the lengthy list of cross-reacting plant-derived products, particularly when it comes to reviewing topical product ingredients with susceptible or allergic patients. Latex-allergic patients may react to these natural ingredients in food or when topically applied to the skin.

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), and 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. Nutter AF. Br J Dermatol 1979 Nov;101(5):597-8.

2. Kelly KJ et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Sep-Oct;5(5):1212-16.

3. Blanco C et al. Ann Allergy. 1994 Oct;73(4):309-14.

4. Beezhold DH et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996 Apr;26(4):416-22.

5. Brehler R et al. Allergy. 1997 Apr;52(4):404-10.

6. Mäkinen-Kiljunen S. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994 Jun;93(6):990-6.

7. Mikkola JH et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Dec;102(6 Pt 1):1005-12.

8. Ahlroth M et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995 Aug;96(2):167-73.

9. Chen Z et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Sep;102(3):476-81.

10. Diaz-Perales A et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):681-7.

11. Wagner S et al. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002 Nov;30(Pt 6):935-40.