User login
Mindful kids, part 1: Origins and evidence
Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?
Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1 Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.
A study of a modified version of Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s MBSR in middle schoolers in an inner city environment compared 12 weeks of mindfulness training versus a typical health curriculum discussing adolescence, stress, and puberty. In this inner city environment, students randomized to mindfulness training reported less depression, less hostility, fewer ruminations, and fewer PTSD symptoms as well as fewer physical complaints.10 Regarding clinical populations, mindfulness training in adolescents has shown promise for ADHD, with improvement in both core symptoms and functionality.11 This especially seems pronounced when caregivers are supported in learning mindful parenting techniques alongside their teens’ mindfulness training.12
In a general psychiatry clinic, an 8-week adolescent MBSR program was added to supplement treatment as usual – psychotherapy and medication management. Those randomized to mindfulness showed improvements in sleep and self-esteem, as well as a decline in depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and interpersonal problems.13 Perhaps most impressively, half of the MBSR group dropped at least one diagnosis after the 8-week program, whereas none of those in the wait list group, receiving psychiatric specialty care as usual, decreased their diagnosis count.
While the sum of such research in adults and children builds a strong case for the value of mindfulness at both the universal (well-child check) and problem-focused levels, there are limitations to our knowledge base. The number of studies and total number of children and adolescents enrolled in mindfulness research is far fewer than in studies with adults. A variety of mindfulness practices have been incorporated into study interventions such that results are not always comparable and distinguishing the mechanism of action is difficult. Additionally, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies are harder to accomplish with such active interventions, although headway is being made.14
Despite what remains to be discovered, bringing mindfulness into the lives of children and adolescents seems increasingly sensible, given the growing body of scientific support for the benefits of mindfulness practices at the behavioral and functional neuroanatomic levels. As is the case with recommending healthy diets, exercise, and other universal health-promoting behaviors, the knowledge that mindfulness practices are beneficial may not be enough to get patients and their families engaged in these methods. The second article in this series will address some nuts and bolts of prescribing mindfulness in a pediatric health care setting.
Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.
3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.
4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.
5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.
6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.
7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.
8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.
9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.
10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.
11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.
12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.
13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.
Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?
Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1 Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.
A study of a modified version of Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s MBSR in middle schoolers in an inner city environment compared 12 weeks of mindfulness training versus a typical health curriculum discussing adolescence, stress, and puberty. In this inner city environment, students randomized to mindfulness training reported less depression, less hostility, fewer ruminations, and fewer PTSD symptoms as well as fewer physical complaints.10 Regarding clinical populations, mindfulness training in adolescents has shown promise for ADHD, with improvement in both core symptoms and functionality.11 This especially seems pronounced when caregivers are supported in learning mindful parenting techniques alongside their teens’ mindfulness training.12
In a general psychiatry clinic, an 8-week adolescent MBSR program was added to supplement treatment as usual – psychotherapy and medication management. Those randomized to mindfulness showed improvements in sleep and self-esteem, as well as a decline in depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and interpersonal problems.13 Perhaps most impressively, half of the MBSR group dropped at least one diagnosis after the 8-week program, whereas none of those in the wait list group, receiving psychiatric specialty care as usual, decreased their diagnosis count.
While the sum of such research in adults and children builds a strong case for the value of mindfulness at both the universal (well-child check) and problem-focused levels, there are limitations to our knowledge base. The number of studies and total number of children and adolescents enrolled in mindfulness research is far fewer than in studies with adults. A variety of mindfulness practices have been incorporated into study interventions such that results are not always comparable and distinguishing the mechanism of action is difficult. Additionally, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies are harder to accomplish with such active interventions, although headway is being made.14
Despite what remains to be discovered, bringing mindfulness into the lives of children and adolescents seems increasingly sensible, given the growing body of scientific support for the benefits of mindfulness practices at the behavioral and functional neuroanatomic levels. As is the case with recommending healthy diets, exercise, and other universal health-promoting behaviors, the knowledge that mindfulness practices are beneficial may not be enough to get patients and their families engaged in these methods. The second article in this series will address some nuts and bolts of prescribing mindfulness in a pediatric health care setting.
Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.
3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.
4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.
5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.
6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.
7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.
8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.
9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.
10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.
11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.
12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.
13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.
Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?
Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1 Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.
A study of a modified version of Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s MBSR in middle schoolers in an inner city environment compared 12 weeks of mindfulness training versus a typical health curriculum discussing adolescence, stress, and puberty. In this inner city environment, students randomized to mindfulness training reported less depression, less hostility, fewer ruminations, and fewer PTSD symptoms as well as fewer physical complaints.10 Regarding clinical populations, mindfulness training in adolescents has shown promise for ADHD, with improvement in both core symptoms and functionality.11 This especially seems pronounced when caregivers are supported in learning mindful parenting techniques alongside their teens’ mindfulness training.12
In a general psychiatry clinic, an 8-week adolescent MBSR program was added to supplement treatment as usual – psychotherapy and medication management. Those randomized to mindfulness showed improvements in sleep and self-esteem, as well as a decline in depressive and anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, and interpersonal problems.13 Perhaps most impressively, half of the MBSR group dropped at least one diagnosis after the 8-week program, whereas none of those in the wait list group, receiving psychiatric specialty care as usual, decreased their diagnosis count.
While the sum of such research in adults and children builds a strong case for the value of mindfulness at both the universal (well-child check) and problem-focused levels, there are limitations to our knowledge base. The number of studies and total number of children and adolescents enrolled in mindfulness research is far fewer than in studies with adults. A variety of mindfulness practices have been incorporated into study interventions such that results are not always comparable and distinguishing the mechanism of action is difficult. Additionally, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies are harder to accomplish with such active interventions, although headway is being made.14
Despite what remains to be discovered, bringing mindfulness into the lives of children and adolescents seems increasingly sensible, given the growing body of scientific support for the benefits of mindfulness practices at the behavioral and functional neuroanatomic levels. As is the case with recommending healthy diets, exercise, and other universal health-promoting behaviors, the knowledge that mindfulness practices are beneficial may not be enough to get patients and their families engaged in these methods. The second article in this series will address some nuts and bolts of prescribing mindfulness in a pediatric health care setting.
Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.
3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.
4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.
5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.
6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.
7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.
8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.
9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.
10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.
11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.
12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.
13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.
Mindful kids, part 2: Integration into practice
In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1
An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).2 While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.
Bringing mindfulness practices to your office practice could occur anywhere along the spectrum from integrating some mindfulness moments into your standard physical exam to collaborating with an experienced mindfulness or yoga instructor to offer individual and group support to patients and families. My focus here is on simple practices and tools to begin introducing mindfulness to families.
A key component is clinician and caregiver buy-in. Developing your own practice, even if it’s simply three mindful breaths before entering each patient exam room, goes miles in terms of your being able to speak genuinely about the benefits and challenges of mindfulness in a relatable way. Similarly, the more kids see their families practicing and supporting mindfulness, the more likely they are to develop their own routines.
Legitimizing mindfulness practices with a “prescription” also can add to success rates. Considering diaphragmatic breathing as a foundational technique, the following prescription can be printed on cards and reviewed briefly in a visit:
- Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
- Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
- As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
- Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.
In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”
This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.
For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:
- The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
- As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
- Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
- Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.
Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.
In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”
After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.
Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.
Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.
Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Online resources:
- A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
- Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
- Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
- Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1
An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).2 While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.
Bringing mindfulness practices to your office practice could occur anywhere along the spectrum from integrating some mindfulness moments into your standard physical exam to collaborating with an experienced mindfulness or yoga instructor to offer individual and group support to patients and families. My focus here is on simple practices and tools to begin introducing mindfulness to families.
A key component is clinician and caregiver buy-in. Developing your own practice, even if it’s simply three mindful breaths before entering each patient exam room, goes miles in terms of your being able to speak genuinely about the benefits and challenges of mindfulness in a relatable way. Similarly, the more kids see their families practicing and supporting mindfulness, the more likely they are to develop their own routines.
Legitimizing mindfulness practices with a “prescription” also can add to success rates. Considering diaphragmatic breathing as a foundational technique, the following prescription can be printed on cards and reviewed briefly in a visit:
- Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
- Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
- As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
- Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.
In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”
This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.
For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:
- The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
- As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
- Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
- Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.
Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.
In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”
After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.
Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.
Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.
Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Online resources:
- A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
- Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
- Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
- Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”1
An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).2 While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.
Bringing mindfulness practices to your office practice could occur anywhere along the spectrum from integrating some mindfulness moments into your standard physical exam to collaborating with an experienced mindfulness or yoga instructor to offer individual and group support to patients and families. My focus here is on simple practices and tools to begin introducing mindfulness to families.
A key component is clinician and caregiver buy-in. Developing your own practice, even if it’s simply three mindful breaths before entering each patient exam room, goes miles in terms of your being able to speak genuinely about the benefits and challenges of mindfulness in a relatable way. Similarly, the more kids see their families practicing and supporting mindfulness, the more likely they are to develop their own routines.
Legitimizing mindfulness practices with a “prescription” also can add to success rates. Considering diaphragmatic breathing as a foundational technique, the following prescription can be printed on cards and reviewed briefly in a visit:
- Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
- Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
- As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
- Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.
In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”
This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.
For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:
- The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
- As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
- Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
- Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.
Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.
In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”
After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.
Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.
Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.
Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Online resources:
- A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
- Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
- Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
- Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.
References
1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).
2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
Adolescents and sleep, or the lack thereof
Every parent will attest that bright-eyed children grow into sleepy adolescents, and the science confirms their observations. There are multiple factors that prevent adolescents from getting the sleep they need, and inadequate sleep has serious consequences – from impaired learning to depressive symptoms, obesity to deadly accidents – all of which are potentially preventable with some practical strategies to promote adequate sleep.
Adolescence is a period of intense growth and development, so it is no surprise that adolescents require a lot of sleep, over 9 hours nightly. But surveys have shown that only 3% of American adolescents get 9 hours of sleep nightly, and the average amount of weeknight sleep is only 6 hours.1 Sleep deprivation is not a problem in childhood, so why can’t adolescents get enough sleep?
Over the last 15 years, a new factor – screen time – has worsened the adolescent sleep situation. Most teens have an electronic device in their bedroom and use it for homework, entertainment, and socializing well into the night. Multiple studies have confirmed that electronic exposure in the evening is associated with less sleep at night and more day time sleepiness,by competing with sleep and suppression of nocturnal melatonin release, which can delay the onset of sleep.2
It is ironic that many teens are staying up late for homework, when their lack of sleep can interfere with consolidation of learning. It also has powerful effects on working memory and reaction time, making both academic and athletic performance suffer. Chronically sleep-deprived teenagers often complain of difficulty with initiating and sustaining attention, which may lead to a mistaken diagnosis of ADHD, and stimulant treatment may further complicate sleep.
Good mental health is not the only casualty of inadequate sleep. A growing body of evidence links short sleep duration with an increased risk of obesity. This appears to be mediated by alterations in neurohormones associated with sleep, leading to higher carbohydrate and fat intake, more snacking and insulin resistance.
Anything that compromises attention and reaction time, including sleep deprivation, adds risk to driving, particularly for inexperienced and impulsive adolescent drivers. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that drivers 25 and younger cause more than half of all “fall asleep” crashes.
Teenagers generally know that they are exhausted, but the strategies they might use to manage their fatigue can actually make things worse. Sleepy teenagers often consume large amounts of caffeine to get through their days and their homework at night. Caffeine, in turn, interferes with both the onset and quality of sleep, perpetuating the cycle. Even “catch-up” sleep on weekends is a strategy that can contribute to the problem, as it can lead to more disrupted sleep by pushing the onset of school night sleepiness even later.
While growing autonomy is part of why teenagers are sleep deprived, they will consider the caring and informed guidance of their pediatricians about their health. Ask your teenage patients how much sleep they usually get on a school night. It can be validating to show them how sleep deprived they are, and point out how strategies like caffeine and oversleeping might be making it worse. Explain that people (adults, too!) need to make time for sleep just as they might for exercise or friends. Tell them about “good sleep hygiene,” the practice of having consistent sleep times and routines that are conducive to restful sleep. This can include a hot shower before bed, reading for the last 30 minutes before lights out, and no screen time for at least 1 hour before bed. Indeed, it can be powerful to urge that everyone in the family takes screens out of their bedrooms.
Additionally, while they might sleep in on weekends, it shouldn’t be much more than an hour longer than on weekdays. And no naps after school! It is common for teens to feel overwhelmed by their commitments and that sleep must be the first thing to go. Use their growing sense of autonomy to remind them that they get to choose how to use their time, and balance will pay off much more than sacrificing sleep. A practical conversation about sleep can help them to make informed choices and thoughtfully take care of themselves before they head off to college.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Resources
1. “Adolescent Sleep Needs and Patterns: Research Report and Resource Guide.” (Arlington, Va.: National Sleep Foundation, 2000.)
2. Pediatrics. 2014 Sep;134(3):e921-32.
3. Sleep. 2004 Nov 1;27(7):1351-8.
Every parent will attest that bright-eyed children grow into sleepy adolescents, and the science confirms their observations. There are multiple factors that prevent adolescents from getting the sleep they need, and inadequate sleep has serious consequences – from impaired learning to depressive symptoms, obesity to deadly accidents – all of which are potentially preventable with some practical strategies to promote adequate sleep.
Adolescence is a period of intense growth and development, so it is no surprise that adolescents require a lot of sleep, over 9 hours nightly. But surveys have shown that only 3% of American adolescents get 9 hours of sleep nightly, and the average amount of weeknight sleep is only 6 hours.1 Sleep deprivation is not a problem in childhood, so why can’t adolescents get enough sleep?
Over the last 15 years, a new factor – screen time – has worsened the adolescent sleep situation. Most teens have an electronic device in their bedroom and use it for homework, entertainment, and socializing well into the night. Multiple studies have confirmed that electronic exposure in the evening is associated with less sleep at night and more day time sleepiness,by competing with sleep and suppression of nocturnal melatonin release, which can delay the onset of sleep.2
It is ironic that many teens are staying up late for homework, when their lack of sleep can interfere with consolidation of learning. It also has powerful effects on working memory and reaction time, making both academic and athletic performance suffer. Chronically sleep-deprived teenagers often complain of difficulty with initiating and sustaining attention, which may lead to a mistaken diagnosis of ADHD, and stimulant treatment may further complicate sleep.
Good mental health is not the only casualty of inadequate sleep. A growing body of evidence links short sleep duration with an increased risk of obesity. This appears to be mediated by alterations in neurohormones associated with sleep, leading to higher carbohydrate and fat intake, more snacking and insulin resistance.
Anything that compromises attention and reaction time, including sleep deprivation, adds risk to driving, particularly for inexperienced and impulsive adolescent drivers. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that drivers 25 and younger cause more than half of all “fall asleep” crashes.
Teenagers generally know that they are exhausted, but the strategies they might use to manage their fatigue can actually make things worse. Sleepy teenagers often consume large amounts of caffeine to get through their days and their homework at night. Caffeine, in turn, interferes with both the onset and quality of sleep, perpetuating the cycle. Even “catch-up” sleep on weekends is a strategy that can contribute to the problem, as it can lead to more disrupted sleep by pushing the onset of school night sleepiness even later.
While growing autonomy is part of why teenagers are sleep deprived, they will consider the caring and informed guidance of their pediatricians about their health. Ask your teenage patients how much sleep they usually get on a school night. It can be validating to show them how sleep deprived they are, and point out how strategies like caffeine and oversleeping might be making it worse. Explain that people (adults, too!) need to make time for sleep just as they might for exercise or friends. Tell them about “good sleep hygiene,” the practice of having consistent sleep times and routines that are conducive to restful sleep. This can include a hot shower before bed, reading for the last 30 minutes before lights out, and no screen time for at least 1 hour before bed. Indeed, it can be powerful to urge that everyone in the family takes screens out of their bedrooms.
Additionally, while they might sleep in on weekends, it shouldn’t be much more than an hour longer than on weekdays. And no naps after school! It is common for teens to feel overwhelmed by their commitments and that sleep must be the first thing to go. Use their growing sense of autonomy to remind them that they get to choose how to use their time, and balance will pay off much more than sacrificing sleep. A practical conversation about sleep can help them to make informed choices and thoughtfully take care of themselves before they head off to college.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Resources
1. “Adolescent Sleep Needs and Patterns: Research Report and Resource Guide.” (Arlington, Va.: National Sleep Foundation, 2000.)
2. Pediatrics. 2014 Sep;134(3):e921-32.
3. Sleep. 2004 Nov 1;27(7):1351-8.
Every parent will attest that bright-eyed children grow into sleepy adolescents, and the science confirms their observations. There are multiple factors that prevent adolescents from getting the sleep they need, and inadequate sleep has serious consequences – from impaired learning to depressive symptoms, obesity to deadly accidents – all of which are potentially preventable with some practical strategies to promote adequate sleep.
Adolescence is a period of intense growth and development, so it is no surprise that adolescents require a lot of sleep, over 9 hours nightly. But surveys have shown that only 3% of American adolescents get 9 hours of sleep nightly, and the average amount of weeknight sleep is only 6 hours.1 Sleep deprivation is not a problem in childhood, so why can’t adolescents get enough sleep?
Over the last 15 years, a new factor – screen time – has worsened the adolescent sleep situation. Most teens have an electronic device in their bedroom and use it for homework, entertainment, and socializing well into the night. Multiple studies have confirmed that electronic exposure in the evening is associated with less sleep at night and more day time sleepiness,by competing with sleep and suppression of nocturnal melatonin release, which can delay the onset of sleep.2
It is ironic that many teens are staying up late for homework, when their lack of sleep can interfere with consolidation of learning. It also has powerful effects on working memory and reaction time, making both academic and athletic performance suffer. Chronically sleep-deprived teenagers often complain of difficulty with initiating and sustaining attention, which may lead to a mistaken diagnosis of ADHD, and stimulant treatment may further complicate sleep.
Good mental health is not the only casualty of inadequate sleep. A growing body of evidence links short sleep duration with an increased risk of obesity. This appears to be mediated by alterations in neurohormones associated with sleep, leading to higher carbohydrate and fat intake, more snacking and insulin resistance.
Anything that compromises attention and reaction time, including sleep deprivation, adds risk to driving, particularly for inexperienced and impulsive adolescent drivers. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that drivers 25 and younger cause more than half of all “fall asleep” crashes.
Teenagers generally know that they are exhausted, but the strategies they might use to manage their fatigue can actually make things worse. Sleepy teenagers often consume large amounts of caffeine to get through their days and their homework at night. Caffeine, in turn, interferes with both the onset and quality of sleep, perpetuating the cycle. Even “catch-up” sleep on weekends is a strategy that can contribute to the problem, as it can lead to more disrupted sleep by pushing the onset of school night sleepiness even later.
While growing autonomy is part of why teenagers are sleep deprived, they will consider the caring and informed guidance of their pediatricians about their health. Ask your teenage patients how much sleep they usually get on a school night. It can be validating to show them how sleep deprived they are, and point out how strategies like caffeine and oversleeping might be making it worse. Explain that people (adults, too!) need to make time for sleep just as they might for exercise or friends. Tell them about “good sleep hygiene,” the practice of having consistent sleep times and routines that are conducive to restful sleep. This can include a hot shower before bed, reading for the last 30 minutes before lights out, and no screen time for at least 1 hour before bed. Indeed, it can be powerful to urge that everyone in the family takes screens out of their bedrooms.
Additionally, while they might sleep in on weekends, it shouldn’t be much more than an hour longer than on weekdays. And no naps after school! It is common for teens to feel overwhelmed by their commitments and that sleep must be the first thing to go. Use their growing sense of autonomy to remind them that they get to choose how to use their time, and balance will pay off much more than sacrificing sleep. A practical conversation about sleep can help them to make informed choices and thoughtfully take care of themselves before they head off to college.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton Wellesley Hospital, also in Boston. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Resources
1. “Adolescent Sleep Needs and Patterns: Research Report and Resource Guide.” (Arlington, Va.: National Sleep Foundation, 2000.)
2. Pediatrics. 2014 Sep;134(3):e921-32.
3. Sleep. 2004 Nov 1;27(7):1351-8.
Conflicts and the ethical practice of surgery
Once a month in my department, we focus on a case with challenging ethical considerations for part of the discussion at the M & M conference.
Earlier this week, my colleagues and I heard about an unfortunate 87-year-old man, who had been living independently when he developed a partial bowel obstruction. His wife had died over 10 years earlier and, although he lived alone, he had two sons and a daughter who lived close to him and regularly looked in on him and helped him to keep up his small home.
The ethical challenge presented at M & M was the difficulty of determining what was the “best” treatment for this patient and how that decision was reached. The surgical team explained to the patient and his family that there were two broad possibilities for his treatment: definitive resection of the primary tumor or palliative options. In order for him to have a colon resection, the cardiologists felt that he would need coronary artery bypass grafting before surgery. To pursue this course of treatment, they wanted him to have a diverting colostomy before the heart surgery. Then, after a period of recovery from the heart surgery, he could have a colon resection with takedown of the colostomy.
Alternatively, the palliative option of a colonic stent followed by external beam radiation to the lesion was offered. The surgical team tried to present the options in an evenhanded manner so as not to paint either option as being significantly worse. However, even with a definitive resection, the surgeons did not believe that they could cure the patient and they explained this to him and his family.
The patient seemed to have the capacity to make the choice and, although he had originally wanted “everything” done, when he was transferred to our hospital and when presented with these choices, he stated that the palliative option seemed better for him. He told the surgical team that he did not want to have heart surgery, and he did not want to risk dying with a colostomy.
At the end of the family meeting, the surgical team felt that the patient had made a reasonable decision, and they were comfortable with his choice. However, the following day, the patient’s daughter called demanding another meeting with the surgical team. She had been at the family meeting the prior day and stated that, in her opinion, the surgical team had “pushed” the patient to accept the palliative option and that she was not certain that he really had the capacity to make decisions for himself.
During the subsequent meeting with the family, the daughter was the primary spokesperson, but the two sons also seemed in agreement with her assessment that the patient lacked capacity. She stated that the patient was transferred to our medical center in order to allow him to get the treatments that he needed, and now, in her opinion, the surgical team was not pursuing the “best” treatment. She was upset and repeatedly expressed this sentiment.
The surgery team was understandably concerned with this turn of events. They had undertaken their evaluation with constant reassessment of the likely impact of the treatment options on the patient’s quality of life. They had tried to explain the options fully to the patient and involved his family in the discussion. In short, the surgical team had done their best to pursue high-quality ethical care by utilizing shared decision making. Despite spending significant time with the patient and his family, there was now conflict. The patient wanted to pursue a course of treatment that the surgical team felt was appropriate, but the family disagreed and wanted to make the decisions for the patient and pursue a more aggressive approach.
For many physicians, especially the residents who were actively involved in caring for this patient, this outcome – namely, significant conflict with the family and the family feeling that the patient should not be allowed to make his own decisions – seemed to be exactly what the careful attention to the ethical dimension of surgical practice tries to avoid.
Even though most of us try to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, optimal ethical practice does not always result in a consensus of opinions and that lack of conflict. As physicians, we can try to follow all of the ethical guidelines of extensive communication and shared decision making, yet we may still wind up with unhappy patients and families.
The goal of ethical practice should not be to avoid conflicts, but, rather, to treat patients in the manner that helps them to achieve what they value most.
In this present case, what could the surgical team do moving forward? Sometimes conflicts can be solved with additional information. A psychiatry consultation might be helpful to gain an opinion on whether the patient has the capacity to make decisions. Additionally, an ethics consultation might be valuable to gain an outside view to help the family understand the potential merits of a palliative approach. Although this case raises ethical concerns for the surgical team, the conflicts that resulted ought not be seen as a failure of the discussions surrounding the patient’s goals for his treatment.
Most of us prefer to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, but our ultimate goal in the ethical practice of surgery cannot be consensus. Rather, it should be to do the best we can to provide care that helps the patient achieve his or her goals. Unfortunately, we may do everything possible to provide high quality ethical care to patients and conflict still result. However, we cannot use resulting conflict as a reason to avoid the many discussions needed to communicate the options accurately to our patients and their families.
Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
Once a month in my department, we focus on a case with challenging ethical considerations for part of the discussion at the M & M conference.
Earlier this week, my colleagues and I heard about an unfortunate 87-year-old man, who had been living independently when he developed a partial bowel obstruction. His wife had died over 10 years earlier and, although he lived alone, he had two sons and a daughter who lived close to him and regularly looked in on him and helped him to keep up his small home.
The ethical challenge presented at M & M was the difficulty of determining what was the “best” treatment for this patient and how that decision was reached. The surgical team explained to the patient and his family that there were two broad possibilities for his treatment: definitive resection of the primary tumor or palliative options. In order for him to have a colon resection, the cardiologists felt that he would need coronary artery bypass grafting before surgery. To pursue this course of treatment, they wanted him to have a diverting colostomy before the heart surgery. Then, after a period of recovery from the heart surgery, he could have a colon resection with takedown of the colostomy.
Alternatively, the palliative option of a colonic stent followed by external beam radiation to the lesion was offered. The surgical team tried to present the options in an evenhanded manner so as not to paint either option as being significantly worse. However, even with a definitive resection, the surgeons did not believe that they could cure the patient and they explained this to him and his family.
The patient seemed to have the capacity to make the choice and, although he had originally wanted “everything” done, when he was transferred to our hospital and when presented with these choices, he stated that the palliative option seemed better for him. He told the surgical team that he did not want to have heart surgery, and he did not want to risk dying with a colostomy.
At the end of the family meeting, the surgical team felt that the patient had made a reasonable decision, and they were comfortable with his choice. However, the following day, the patient’s daughter called demanding another meeting with the surgical team. She had been at the family meeting the prior day and stated that, in her opinion, the surgical team had “pushed” the patient to accept the palliative option and that she was not certain that he really had the capacity to make decisions for himself.
During the subsequent meeting with the family, the daughter was the primary spokesperson, but the two sons also seemed in agreement with her assessment that the patient lacked capacity. She stated that the patient was transferred to our medical center in order to allow him to get the treatments that he needed, and now, in her opinion, the surgical team was not pursuing the “best” treatment. She was upset and repeatedly expressed this sentiment.
The surgery team was understandably concerned with this turn of events. They had undertaken their evaluation with constant reassessment of the likely impact of the treatment options on the patient’s quality of life. They had tried to explain the options fully to the patient and involved his family in the discussion. In short, the surgical team had done their best to pursue high-quality ethical care by utilizing shared decision making. Despite spending significant time with the patient and his family, there was now conflict. The patient wanted to pursue a course of treatment that the surgical team felt was appropriate, but the family disagreed and wanted to make the decisions for the patient and pursue a more aggressive approach.
For many physicians, especially the residents who were actively involved in caring for this patient, this outcome – namely, significant conflict with the family and the family feeling that the patient should not be allowed to make his own decisions – seemed to be exactly what the careful attention to the ethical dimension of surgical practice tries to avoid.
Even though most of us try to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, optimal ethical practice does not always result in a consensus of opinions and that lack of conflict. As physicians, we can try to follow all of the ethical guidelines of extensive communication and shared decision making, yet we may still wind up with unhappy patients and families.
The goal of ethical practice should not be to avoid conflicts, but, rather, to treat patients in the manner that helps them to achieve what they value most.
In this present case, what could the surgical team do moving forward? Sometimes conflicts can be solved with additional information. A psychiatry consultation might be helpful to gain an opinion on whether the patient has the capacity to make decisions. Additionally, an ethics consultation might be valuable to gain an outside view to help the family understand the potential merits of a palliative approach. Although this case raises ethical concerns for the surgical team, the conflicts that resulted ought not be seen as a failure of the discussions surrounding the patient’s goals for his treatment.
Most of us prefer to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, but our ultimate goal in the ethical practice of surgery cannot be consensus. Rather, it should be to do the best we can to provide care that helps the patient achieve his or her goals. Unfortunately, we may do everything possible to provide high quality ethical care to patients and conflict still result. However, we cannot use resulting conflict as a reason to avoid the many discussions needed to communicate the options accurately to our patients and their families.
Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
Once a month in my department, we focus on a case with challenging ethical considerations for part of the discussion at the M & M conference.
Earlier this week, my colleagues and I heard about an unfortunate 87-year-old man, who had been living independently when he developed a partial bowel obstruction. His wife had died over 10 years earlier and, although he lived alone, he had two sons and a daughter who lived close to him and regularly looked in on him and helped him to keep up his small home.
The ethical challenge presented at M & M was the difficulty of determining what was the “best” treatment for this patient and how that decision was reached. The surgical team explained to the patient and his family that there were two broad possibilities for his treatment: definitive resection of the primary tumor or palliative options. In order for him to have a colon resection, the cardiologists felt that he would need coronary artery bypass grafting before surgery. To pursue this course of treatment, they wanted him to have a diverting colostomy before the heart surgery. Then, after a period of recovery from the heart surgery, he could have a colon resection with takedown of the colostomy.
Alternatively, the palliative option of a colonic stent followed by external beam radiation to the lesion was offered. The surgical team tried to present the options in an evenhanded manner so as not to paint either option as being significantly worse. However, even with a definitive resection, the surgeons did not believe that they could cure the patient and they explained this to him and his family.
The patient seemed to have the capacity to make the choice and, although he had originally wanted “everything” done, when he was transferred to our hospital and when presented with these choices, he stated that the palliative option seemed better for him. He told the surgical team that he did not want to have heart surgery, and he did not want to risk dying with a colostomy.
At the end of the family meeting, the surgical team felt that the patient had made a reasonable decision, and they were comfortable with his choice. However, the following day, the patient’s daughter called demanding another meeting with the surgical team. She had been at the family meeting the prior day and stated that, in her opinion, the surgical team had “pushed” the patient to accept the palliative option and that she was not certain that he really had the capacity to make decisions for himself.
During the subsequent meeting with the family, the daughter was the primary spokesperson, but the two sons also seemed in agreement with her assessment that the patient lacked capacity. She stated that the patient was transferred to our medical center in order to allow him to get the treatments that he needed, and now, in her opinion, the surgical team was not pursuing the “best” treatment. She was upset and repeatedly expressed this sentiment.
The surgery team was understandably concerned with this turn of events. They had undertaken their evaluation with constant reassessment of the likely impact of the treatment options on the patient’s quality of life. They had tried to explain the options fully to the patient and involved his family in the discussion. In short, the surgical team had done their best to pursue high-quality ethical care by utilizing shared decision making. Despite spending significant time with the patient and his family, there was now conflict. The patient wanted to pursue a course of treatment that the surgical team felt was appropriate, but the family disagreed and wanted to make the decisions for the patient and pursue a more aggressive approach.
For many physicians, especially the residents who were actively involved in caring for this patient, this outcome – namely, significant conflict with the family and the family feeling that the patient should not be allowed to make his own decisions – seemed to be exactly what the careful attention to the ethical dimension of surgical practice tries to avoid.
Even though most of us try to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, optimal ethical practice does not always result in a consensus of opinions and that lack of conflict. As physicians, we can try to follow all of the ethical guidelines of extensive communication and shared decision making, yet we may still wind up with unhappy patients and families.
The goal of ethical practice should not be to avoid conflicts, but, rather, to treat patients in the manner that helps them to achieve what they value most.
In this present case, what could the surgical team do moving forward? Sometimes conflicts can be solved with additional information. A psychiatry consultation might be helpful to gain an opinion on whether the patient has the capacity to make decisions. Additionally, an ethics consultation might be valuable to gain an outside view to help the family understand the potential merits of a palliative approach. Although this case raises ethical concerns for the surgical team, the conflicts that resulted ought not be seen as a failure of the discussions surrounding the patient’s goals for his treatment.
Most of us prefer to avoid conflicts with patients and their families, but our ultimate goal in the ethical practice of surgery cannot be consensus. Rather, it should be to do the best we can to provide care that helps the patient achieve his or her goals. Unfortunately, we may do everything possible to provide high quality ethical care to patients and conflict still result. However, we cannot use resulting conflict as a reason to avoid the many discussions needed to communicate the options accurately to our patients and their families.
Dr. Angelos is the Linda Kohler Anderson Professor of Surgery and Surgical Ethics, chief of endocrine surgery, and associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago.
Doing a lot with little – health care in Cuba
Although Cuba lies less than 100 miles from the United States, we Americans tend to know far less about the island nation than about almost any other country in our hemisphere. Only since 2014 has the United States begun to allow its citizens to travel directly to Cuba and has opened official diplomatic relations, although direct trade still remains blocked.
Cuba’s health care system has been touted as providing universal access to primary care services, whose goals are promoting health and preventing disease as well as providing free medical education to a veritable army of health care workers. Less well known are the quality and standards of their surgical services.
Although the Cuban government is a centralized, one-party state that follows the Marxist-Leninist ideology, every individual with whom we met answered our many questions with apparent candor. Perhaps our easy rapport was based to some degree on our common profession and our shared commitment to patient care. Although they were clearly proud of the quality of their free education and medical care, they were also quick to admit the shortcomings in their system: widespread poverty, shortages of food and advanced pharmaceuticals, and old medical facilities. We were not restricted in any way from moving around Havana or speaking with anyone, although our free time was admittedly limited because our busy schedule was crammed with at least two visits per day with the groups listed above.
We were interested in looking at how primary care was delivered in Cuba. We met with a primary care doctor in her office, which was situated on the ground floor of the apartment complex in which she and her patients lived. We also visited a polyclinic, two blocks from the primary care doctor’s office that serves as the next step up the chain and is the site where medical and surgical specialists come to consult with patients from 40-60 primary care practices clustered around the polyclinic. The walls of the polyclinic have posters that educate the patients about the importance of handwashing and prevention of hypertension and cancer. The polyclinic also has an epidemiologist who monitors such basic preventive services as immunizations and prenatal care, both of which achieve nearly 100% compliance in a society in which acceptance of these services is not optional. Pap smears are performed in the primary care clinics, as is comprehensive medical care.
As interesting and impressive as we found the primary care clinics, it was the visits with the surgeons in their hospitals that intrigued us the most. The surgeons we met were modest and collegial, yet proud of what they had accomplished under challenging resource constraints. The hospitals that we visited were reminiscent of the city and county hospitals in the United States in which many of us on the trip had trained in the 1970s: older facilities that were clean and serviceable, but with older, basic equipment. Nevertheless, C. Julian F. Ruiz Torres, MD, has developed minimally invasive surgery in a hospital dedicated to such technological advances. Although he is 72 years old, he still works tirelessly to obtain the resources to build a state-of-the-art surgical simulation center, now under construction. Basic minimally invasive surgical procedures are available in most hospitals, although advanced procedures are restricted to centers such as Dr. Ruiz Torres’ facility, Centro Nacional De Cirugia De Minimo Acceso, of which he is justifiably proud.
In the short time that we were in Cuba, we obviously could observe only a fraction of their entire system. We were unable to determine how representative the health care workers we met were; those we did meet, however, were committed, hard working, and idealistic. Their rewards are clearly not financial, as they are equally (and poorly) paid, earning the same $70/month, no matter what their “rank” in the system.
Whatever the political realities of life in Cuba may be outside of the medical setting, we connected with our fellow physicians and bonded over our shared passion for patient care. This trip was about meeting them and gaining some understanding of their professional challenges and their efforts to work with what they have. Their system has evolved in the unique cultural, political, and economic circumstances of Cuba, and so of course, such a system could never work here. And yet, it was refreshing and inspiring to see medical professionals dedicated to the ideals of our profession – serving the people by delivering the best care they could for all of their patients. My hat is off to them for accomplishing so much despite their limited resources.
Dr. Deveney is professor of surgery and vice chair of education in the department of surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
Although Cuba lies less than 100 miles from the United States, we Americans tend to know far less about the island nation than about almost any other country in our hemisphere. Only since 2014 has the United States begun to allow its citizens to travel directly to Cuba and has opened official diplomatic relations, although direct trade still remains blocked.
Cuba’s health care system has been touted as providing universal access to primary care services, whose goals are promoting health and preventing disease as well as providing free medical education to a veritable army of health care workers. Less well known are the quality and standards of their surgical services.
Although the Cuban government is a centralized, one-party state that follows the Marxist-Leninist ideology, every individual with whom we met answered our many questions with apparent candor. Perhaps our easy rapport was based to some degree on our common profession and our shared commitment to patient care. Although they were clearly proud of the quality of their free education and medical care, they were also quick to admit the shortcomings in their system: widespread poverty, shortages of food and advanced pharmaceuticals, and old medical facilities. We were not restricted in any way from moving around Havana or speaking with anyone, although our free time was admittedly limited because our busy schedule was crammed with at least two visits per day with the groups listed above.
We were interested in looking at how primary care was delivered in Cuba. We met with a primary care doctor in her office, which was situated on the ground floor of the apartment complex in which she and her patients lived. We also visited a polyclinic, two blocks from the primary care doctor’s office that serves as the next step up the chain and is the site where medical and surgical specialists come to consult with patients from 40-60 primary care practices clustered around the polyclinic. The walls of the polyclinic have posters that educate the patients about the importance of handwashing and prevention of hypertension and cancer. The polyclinic also has an epidemiologist who monitors such basic preventive services as immunizations and prenatal care, both of which achieve nearly 100% compliance in a society in which acceptance of these services is not optional. Pap smears are performed in the primary care clinics, as is comprehensive medical care.
As interesting and impressive as we found the primary care clinics, it was the visits with the surgeons in their hospitals that intrigued us the most. The surgeons we met were modest and collegial, yet proud of what they had accomplished under challenging resource constraints. The hospitals that we visited were reminiscent of the city and county hospitals in the United States in which many of us on the trip had trained in the 1970s: older facilities that were clean and serviceable, but with older, basic equipment. Nevertheless, C. Julian F. Ruiz Torres, MD, has developed minimally invasive surgery in a hospital dedicated to such technological advances. Although he is 72 years old, he still works tirelessly to obtain the resources to build a state-of-the-art surgical simulation center, now under construction. Basic minimally invasive surgical procedures are available in most hospitals, although advanced procedures are restricted to centers such as Dr. Ruiz Torres’ facility, Centro Nacional De Cirugia De Minimo Acceso, of which he is justifiably proud.
In the short time that we were in Cuba, we obviously could observe only a fraction of their entire system. We were unable to determine how representative the health care workers we met were; those we did meet, however, were committed, hard working, and idealistic. Their rewards are clearly not financial, as they are equally (and poorly) paid, earning the same $70/month, no matter what their “rank” in the system.
Whatever the political realities of life in Cuba may be outside of the medical setting, we connected with our fellow physicians and bonded over our shared passion for patient care. This trip was about meeting them and gaining some understanding of their professional challenges and their efforts to work with what they have. Their system has evolved in the unique cultural, political, and economic circumstances of Cuba, and so of course, such a system could never work here. And yet, it was refreshing and inspiring to see medical professionals dedicated to the ideals of our profession – serving the people by delivering the best care they could for all of their patients. My hat is off to them for accomplishing so much despite their limited resources.
Dr. Deveney is professor of surgery and vice chair of education in the department of surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
Although Cuba lies less than 100 miles from the United States, we Americans tend to know far less about the island nation than about almost any other country in our hemisphere. Only since 2014 has the United States begun to allow its citizens to travel directly to Cuba and has opened official diplomatic relations, although direct trade still remains blocked.
Cuba’s health care system has been touted as providing universal access to primary care services, whose goals are promoting health and preventing disease as well as providing free medical education to a veritable army of health care workers. Less well known are the quality and standards of their surgical services.
Although the Cuban government is a centralized, one-party state that follows the Marxist-Leninist ideology, every individual with whom we met answered our many questions with apparent candor. Perhaps our easy rapport was based to some degree on our common profession and our shared commitment to patient care. Although they were clearly proud of the quality of their free education and medical care, they were also quick to admit the shortcomings in their system: widespread poverty, shortages of food and advanced pharmaceuticals, and old medical facilities. We were not restricted in any way from moving around Havana or speaking with anyone, although our free time was admittedly limited because our busy schedule was crammed with at least two visits per day with the groups listed above.
We were interested in looking at how primary care was delivered in Cuba. We met with a primary care doctor in her office, which was situated on the ground floor of the apartment complex in which she and her patients lived. We also visited a polyclinic, two blocks from the primary care doctor’s office that serves as the next step up the chain and is the site where medical and surgical specialists come to consult with patients from 40-60 primary care practices clustered around the polyclinic. The walls of the polyclinic have posters that educate the patients about the importance of handwashing and prevention of hypertension and cancer. The polyclinic also has an epidemiologist who monitors such basic preventive services as immunizations and prenatal care, both of which achieve nearly 100% compliance in a society in which acceptance of these services is not optional. Pap smears are performed in the primary care clinics, as is comprehensive medical care.
As interesting and impressive as we found the primary care clinics, it was the visits with the surgeons in their hospitals that intrigued us the most. The surgeons we met were modest and collegial, yet proud of what they had accomplished under challenging resource constraints. The hospitals that we visited were reminiscent of the city and county hospitals in the United States in which many of us on the trip had trained in the 1970s: older facilities that were clean and serviceable, but with older, basic equipment. Nevertheless, C. Julian F. Ruiz Torres, MD, has developed minimally invasive surgery in a hospital dedicated to such technological advances. Although he is 72 years old, he still works tirelessly to obtain the resources to build a state-of-the-art surgical simulation center, now under construction. Basic minimally invasive surgical procedures are available in most hospitals, although advanced procedures are restricted to centers such as Dr. Ruiz Torres’ facility, Centro Nacional De Cirugia De Minimo Acceso, of which he is justifiably proud.
In the short time that we were in Cuba, we obviously could observe only a fraction of their entire system. We were unable to determine how representative the health care workers we met were; those we did meet, however, were committed, hard working, and idealistic. Their rewards are clearly not financial, as they are equally (and poorly) paid, earning the same $70/month, no matter what their “rank” in the system.
Whatever the political realities of life in Cuba may be outside of the medical setting, we connected with our fellow physicians and bonded over our shared passion for patient care. This trip was about meeting them and gaining some understanding of their professional challenges and their efforts to work with what they have. Their system has evolved in the unique cultural, political, and economic circumstances of Cuba, and so of course, such a system could never work here. And yet, it was refreshing and inspiring to see medical professionals dedicated to the ideals of our profession – serving the people by delivering the best care they could for all of their patients. My hat is off to them for accomplishing so much despite their limited resources.
Dr. Deveney is professor of surgery and vice chair of education in the department of surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. She is the coeditor of ACS Surgery News.
From the Washington Office: Reporting global codes data in 2017
On July 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin requiring practitioners in nine states who are part of groups of 10 or more to report data on the services that they provide for select 10- and 90-day global surgical codes. The data collected will be used to improve the accuracy of global codes starting in 2019.
Which states are impacted by the requirement to report global codes data?
What data must be reported?
Health care practitioners who meet claims-based data collection requirements will be required to report American Medical Association Current Procedure Terminology (CPT)* code 99024, Postoperative follow-up visit, normally included in the surgical package, to indicate that an evaluation and management service was performed during a postoperative period for a reason(s) related to the original procedure, for every postoperative visit they provide within the global period of a select list of 10- or 90-day global codes. CMS selected 293 services, which are provided to Medicare patients by more than 100 practitioners per year and are either furnished more than 10,000 times or have allowed charges of more than $10 million annually. The agency estimates that these 293 codes describe approximately 87 percent of all furnished 10- and 90-day global services, and approximately 77 percent of all Medicare expenditures for 10- and 90-day global services under the physician fee schedule.
Is claims-based data reporting mandatory? Is there a penalty for failure to report?
Reporting is mandatory. CMS’ goal is to gather data on postoperative visits as part of its effort to improve the accuracy of global code values starting in 2019. CMS has the authority to implement a 5 percent withhold in payment for global services for health care professionals who fail to report but has not implemented the withhold at this time. Although there is no penalty or withhold of payment for failure to report, ACS urges all surgeons required to report data to comply. Failure to report will result in incomplete data and should data analysis of both inpatient and outpatient postsurgical visits not reflect existing global code definitions, new assumptions may be created to redefine postoperative care.
Why is CMS requiring the reporting of global codes data?
For several years, CMS has communicated its concerns about the accuracy of the values assigned to 10- and 90-day global codes. In 2014, CMS proposed to transition all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day, with the requirement that postoperative visits would be reported separately. The ACS argued against this transition because it would have resulted in a reduction in surgeons’ reimbursement for 10- and 90-day global services.
Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, DC.
On July 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin requiring practitioners in nine states who are part of groups of 10 or more to report data on the services that they provide for select 10- and 90-day global surgical codes. The data collected will be used to improve the accuracy of global codes starting in 2019.
Which states are impacted by the requirement to report global codes data?
What data must be reported?
Health care practitioners who meet claims-based data collection requirements will be required to report American Medical Association Current Procedure Terminology (CPT)* code 99024, Postoperative follow-up visit, normally included in the surgical package, to indicate that an evaluation and management service was performed during a postoperative period for a reason(s) related to the original procedure, for every postoperative visit they provide within the global period of a select list of 10- or 90-day global codes. CMS selected 293 services, which are provided to Medicare patients by more than 100 practitioners per year and are either furnished more than 10,000 times or have allowed charges of more than $10 million annually. The agency estimates that these 293 codes describe approximately 87 percent of all furnished 10- and 90-day global services, and approximately 77 percent of all Medicare expenditures for 10- and 90-day global services under the physician fee schedule.
Is claims-based data reporting mandatory? Is there a penalty for failure to report?
Reporting is mandatory. CMS’ goal is to gather data on postoperative visits as part of its effort to improve the accuracy of global code values starting in 2019. CMS has the authority to implement a 5 percent withhold in payment for global services for health care professionals who fail to report but has not implemented the withhold at this time. Although there is no penalty or withhold of payment for failure to report, ACS urges all surgeons required to report data to comply. Failure to report will result in incomplete data and should data analysis of both inpatient and outpatient postsurgical visits not reflect existing global code definitions, new assumptions may be created to redefine postoperative care.
Why is CMS requiring the reporting of global codes data?
For several years, CMS has communicated its concerns about the accuracy of the values assigned to 10- and 90-day global codes. In 2014, CMS proposed to transition all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day, with the requirement that postoperative visits would be reported separately. The ACS argued against this transition because it would have resulted in a reduction in surgeons’ reimbursement for 10- and 90-day global services.
Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, DC.
On July 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin requiring practitioners in nine states who are part of groups of 10 or more to report data on the services that they provide for select 10- and 90-day global surgical codes. The data collected will be used to improve the accuracy of global codes starting in 2019.
Which states are impacted by the requirement to report global codes data?
What data must be reported?
Health care practitioners who meet claims-based data collection requirements will be required to report American Medical Association Current Procedure Terminology (CPT)* code 99024, Postoperative follow-up visit, normally included in the surgical package, to indicate that an evaluation and management service was performed during a postoperative period for a reason(s) related to the original procedure, for every postoperative visit they provide within the global period of a select list of 10- or 90-day global codes. CMS selected 293 services, which are provided to Medicare patients by more than 100 practitioners per year and are either furnished more than 10,000 times or have allowed charges of more than $10 million annually. The agency estimates that these 293 codes describe approximately 87 percent of all furnished 10- and 90-day global services, and approximately 77 percent of all Medicare expenditures for 10- and 90-day global services under the physician fee schedule.
Is claims-based data reporting mandatory? Is there a penalty for failure to report?
Reporting is mandatory. CMS’ goal is to gather data on postoperative visits as part of its effort to improve the accuracy of global code values starting in 2019. CMS has the authority to implement a 5 percent withhold in payment for global services for health care professionals who fail to report but has not implemented the withhold at this time. Although there is no penalty or withhold of payment for failure to report, ACS urges all surgeons required to report data to comply. Failure to report will result in incomplete data and should data analysis of both inpatient and outpatient postsurgical visits not reflect existing global code definitions, new assumptions may be created to redefine postoperative care.
Why is CMS requiring the reporting of global codes data?
For several years, CMS has communicated its concerns about the accuracy of the values assigned to 10- and 90-day global codes. In 2014, CMS proposed to transition all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day, with the requirement that postoperative visits would be reported separately. The ACS argued against this transition because it would have resulted in a reduction in surgeons’ reimbursement for 10- and 90-day global services.
Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon, and Medical Director, Advocacy, for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, DC.
GOLD guidelines for the management of COPD – 2017 update
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
Challenges facing independent integrated gastroenterology in 2017
The practice of gastroenterology is challenging for community physicians, those employed in multi-specialty clinics or large health care systems and those in academic health centers. Unique challenges confront independent GI practices, and there are mounting regulatory, financial, and operational barriers. Election results of 2016 have thrown us into an even more confusing future. In this month’s Road Ahead column, national GI leaders summarize the major challenges facing independent practices. Each leads (or has led) large GI practices and each has extensive experience with the policies, politics, payers, and pitfalls that impact our specialty. They have written a clear and helpful article for all physicians trying to maintain their independence and patient-focused practices. I have worked in many settings from the VA, to small and then large, independent practice, within a health system and in 2 academic medical centers. There is much to treasure in every type of practice and also many challenges. Physician leaders, both old and young, need to be informed and active in shaping medical policy.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Editor in Chief
Physicians practicing in independent settings report greater satisfaction with their careers compared with those employed in hospital systems. In a recent survey,1 nearly two-thirds of independent practitioners strongly agreed with the statement, “I like being a physician,” compared with approximately half of those employed by hospital systems. The rapid pace of change in care delivery is forcing all caregivers to modify how they provide care. For physicians practicing in independent settings, understanding, reacting, and adapting to these changes is especially challenging.
It is particularly difficult for physicians and practices to remain abreast and cognizant of the ever-changing rules governing how we deliver care for our patients. The Digestive Health Physicians Association was formed 2 years ago to provide an active voice specifically for independent gastroenterology (GI) practices. The mission of the Digestive Health Physicians Association is to promote and protect the high-quality and cost-efficient care provided in the integrated GI practice model.
In the past decade, meeting the goal of the Triple Aim (improving population health, improving patient experience of care, and reducing the per-capita cost of health care) has become a central tenet of our national health policy strategy, especially since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Achieving the goals of the Triple Aim and complying with the changes and new requirements challenges all gastroenterologists, but particularly those working in the independent practice setting, and especially those in small group practices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently estimated that under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, payment reductions resulting from the first year of reporting in 2017 will occur in 87% of solo practices, in 70% of groups with 2 to 9 physicians, and in 60% of groups with 10 to 24 physicians.2
Preparing yourself and your practice for the changes ahead will require an understanding of the rules, an assessment of your practice’s readiness, and the creation of a plan for compliance to ensure success.
The care model has undergone major changes in the past decade. The development of regional hospital systems has resulted in increasing numbers of employed physicians. Independent gastroenterology practices also have made changes in how they provide care. Vertical integration by independent practices has been a major, positive, and continuing development. As practices have grown more sophisticated with greater areas of specialization, they are increasingly capable of providing services directly to their patients rather than outsourcing them to external providers. Beginning first with endoscopic procedures and now extending to anesthesia, pathology, infusion, and other critical services, increased integration of services across the entire continuum of care has led to improved efficiency and care coordination, benefitting patients with improved outcomes as well as lower costs to our health care system.
The benefits and successes of practice integration, unfortunately, also have made vertically integrated practices a target for regulators and policy makers. Attacks on the integrated delivery model in gastroenterology have at times been supported, if not directly initiated, by our own colleagues in the house of medicine. In this article, we describe some of the threats and challenges confronting independent GI practice.
Anesthesia services
In April 2016, the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists (FSA) made headlines by drawing attention to its role as the relator in a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit that it had filed against more than 50 physicians, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and anesthesia entities. This legal action — which the FSA filed in October 2013 but remained under seal until earlier this year — alleged that the defendants perpetrated Medicare and Medicaid fraud through violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. In this lawsuit, the FSA specifically targeted the company model used to provide anesthesia services. Based on publicly available documents, the case currently is in its early stages, although the FSA has made it clear that it views the lawsuit as a blueprint for attacking integrated anesthesia services.
The FSA’s qui tam action in Florida is part of a broader agenda by those who seek to undermine the integrated care model that enables gastroenterologists and other physician specialists to integrate anesthesia services into lawful care models. A website describing the Florida qui tam action hailed the American Society of Anesthesiology for having “repeatedly petitioned the Office of the Inspector General, brought the issue up with Congressional leaders and executive branch regulators, and provided information and legal resources to its members.”3 These efforts to undermine integrated, coordinated care at the federal level also have extended to the state level, in which efforts have been made in front of licensing boards and state legislatures – albeit unsuccessfully – to restrict the integration of anesthesia services.
In-Office Ancillary Services Exception
The In-Office Ancillary Services Exception (IOASE) to the federal physician self-referral statute (the Stark Law), allows physician practices to provide certain services, including diagnostic imaging and anatomic pathology, in an integrated and coordinated fashion within their respective practices when strict criteria are met.
Not surprisingly, competing providers of these services have long fought for the elimination of the IOASE. In 2013, Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced the Promoting Integrity in Medicare Act. This bill sought to eliminate those legal protections for providing those integrated medical services under the IOASE. Vigorous support for the legislation was provided by a group called the Alliance for Integrity in Medicine, a coalition of organizations including the College of American Pathologists, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, and the American College of Radiology. Although that bill did not even receive a vote during the last Congress, Representative Speier has re-introduced it in this current session, and continues to lobby aggressively in support of this legislation. President Obama’s budget for 2016, as the President’s budget proposal had done for the past several years, also included elimination of the IOASE provision. Extensive advocacy efforts by a broad range of specialty organizations have been instrumental to date in defeating this proposal. A study commissioned by the Digestive Health Physicians Association,4 using Medicare data, showed that GI-related anatomic pathology services actually increased more slowly in professional settings (physician offices and laboratories), at an annual rate of 1.2% from 2009 to 2013, compared with the outpatient hospital setting of 3.5% during that same period. Efforts to restrict practice integration similarly are being made at the state level. In California, legislation to eliminate the IOASE under the State’s self-referral law was introduced in 2014. Coordinated efforts by California patient- and physician-interest groups were successful in educating legislators on the value of the integrated care mode and the bill was soundly defeated.
Medicare Part B Drug Benefit
In March 2016, a new threat to integrated care in GI surfaced when the CMS released a proposed rule that would test a new Medicare Part B payment model for infused drugs including infliximab and vedolizumab. Under the proposal, the CMS would reduce the current reimbursement of 6% above average sales price (ASP) to ASP plus 2.5%, plus a flat fee of $16.85 per infusion. CMS calculations in this proposal failed to include the mandatory 2% sequestration of Medicare payments under the Budget Control Act, which means that the actual reimbursement will be less than 1% over ASP. Because many practices are unable to negotiate discounts for these drugs, unintended consequences of this proposal may disrupt care coordination efforts, resulting in movement of infusions performed in the office setting into the more costly hospital setting. Perversely, although the stated intent of this proposal was to reduce incentives for prescribing more expensive drugs, infused biologic agents are actually treatments of last choice for many inflammatory bowel disease patients.
In the absence of less-expensive alternatives, this proposed change in reimbursement likely will reduce access to effective therapy for some of our sickest patients and will not reduce costs. It is hoped that the vigorous advocacy by a coalition of more than 300 medical societies and patient-interest groups along with a majority of members of Congress may result in modifications to this proposal when the final rule is released later this year.
Stark Law
The Stark Law, commonly known as the Physician Self-Referral Law, originally was passed by Congress in 1989 and was substantially amended last in 1993. The Stark Law was enacted to address concerns of potential overuse or inappropriate use of services in a fee-for-service payment system. Health care delivery has changed dramatically since the Stark law was passed 27 years ago, but this statute has not kept pace and is incompatible with new and innovative delivery models that now mandate a shift from fee-for-service payment models to value-based care and the development of risk-sharing arrangements and bundling of services. In 2011, the CMS created a set of waivers for Accountable Care Organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, but these waivers do not apply to many of the alternative payment models under development by independent physicians.
In the past year, Congress repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 were designed to move our health care system away from fee for service (volume) and toward payment for value. The current Stark Law was created to control arrangements in a fee-for-service system, but the Stark Law now obstructs the ability of physicians in independent practices to coordinate care and work as teams across specialties and with their colleagues who care for patients in other sites of service such as hospitals and academic medical centers.
Congress and CMS recently have heard from dozens of physician organizations, including all of the GI societies, about the need to modernize the Stark Law (by way of updates to the Stark statute and its corresponding regulations) to keep pace with the changes in health care delivery and to ensure successful implementation of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. The changes sought include modifications to the definition of the term group practice to permit coordinated care across specialties and sites of service as well as to promote value-based compensation for all physicians.
Conclusions
To maximally amplify our voices as well our ability to effect positive change, gastroenterologists and other specialists should be actively engaged with the GI societies to help influence those changes proposed. Joining together will facilitate the adaptation by practices to change as it is mandated. The American Gastroenterological Association has long advocated for independent practices promoting optimal patient care delivery. Working cooperatively and collectively with colleagues in all GI professional organizations will enhance our ability to advance the best interests of our patients and our practices.
References
1. Great American Physician Survey 2013. Available from: Physicianspractice.com. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
2. Lowes, R. New Medicare penalty hits small groups, solo physicians hardest. Medscape Medical News. April 28, 2016;
3. The Anesthesia Company Model - FAQs. Available from: http://www.fsahq.org/anesthesia-company-model-faqs. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
4. Milliman White Paper, Medicare anatomic pathology utilization 2009-2013. Available: http://www.dhpassociation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/milliman-03-2009-2013-medicare-utilization-analysis.pdf. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
Dr. Rosenberg is a board-certified gastroenterologist who is currently the president of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Highland Park, Ill; Dr Kim is a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology, P.C., Lone Tree, Colo.; and Dr. Ketover is a gastroenterologist and is president and CEO of Minnesota Gastroenterology, P.A.; St. Paul. The authors disclose no conflicts.
The practice of gastroenterology is challenging for community physicians, those employed in multi-specialty clinics or large health care systems and those in academic health centers. Unique challenges confront independent GI practices, and there are mounting regulatory, financial, and operational barriers. Election results of 2016 have thrown us into an even more confusing future. In this month’s Road Ahead column, national GI leaders summarize the major challenges facing independent practices. Each leads (or has led) large GI practices and each has extensive experience with the policies, politics, payers, and pitfalls that impact our specialty. They have written a clear and helpful article for all physicians trying to maintain their independence and patient-focused practices. I have worked in many settings from the VA, to small and then large, independent practice, within a health system and in 2 academic medical centers. There is much to treasure in every type of practice and also many challenges. Physician leaders, both old and young, need to be informed and active in shaping medical policy.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Editor in Chief
Physicians practicing in independent settings report greater satisfaction with their careers compared with those employed in hospital systems. In a recent survey,1 nearly two-thirds of independent practitioners strongly agreed with the statement, “I like being a physician,” compared with approximately half of those employed by hospital systems. The rapid pace of change in care delivery is forcing all caregivers to modify how they provide care. For physicians practicing in independent settings, understanding, reacting, and adapting to these changes is especially challenging.
It is particularly difficult for physicians and practices to remain abreast and cognizant of the ever-changing rules governing how we deliver care for our patients. The Digestive Health Physicians Association was formed 2 years ago to provide an active voice specifically for independent gastroenterology (GI) practices. The mission of the Digestive Health Physicians Association is to promote and protect the high-quality and cost-efficient care provided in the integrated GI practice model.
In the past decade, meeting the goal of the Triple Aim (improving population health, improving patient experience of care, and reducing the per-capita cost of health care) has become a central tenet of our national health policy strategy, especially since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Achieving the goals of the Triple Aim and complying with the changes and new requirements challenges all gastroenterologists, but particularly those working in the independent practice setting, and especially those in small group practices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently estimated that under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, payment reductions resulting from the first year of reporting in 2017 will occur in 87% of solo practices, in 70% of groups with 2 to 9 physicians, and in 60% of groups with 10 to 24 physicians.2
Preparing yourself and your practice for the changes ahead will require an understanding of the rules, an assessment of your practice’s readiness, and the creation of a plan for compliance to ensure success.
The care model has undergone major changes in the past decade. The development of regional hospital systems has resulted in increasing numbers of employed physicians. Independent gastroenterology practices also have made changes in how they provide care. Vertical integration by independent practices has been a major, positive, and continuing development. As practices have grown more sophisticated with greater areas of specialization, they are increasingly capable of providing services directly to their patients rather than outsourcing them to external providers. Beginning first with endoscopic procedures and now extending to anesthesia, pathology, infusion, and other critical services, increased integration of services across the entire continuum of care has led to improved efficiency and care coordination, benefitting patients with improved outcomes as well as lower costs to our health care system.
The benefits and successes of practice integration, unfortunately, also have made vertically integrated practices a target for regulators and policy makers. Attacks on the integrated delivery model in gastroenterology have at times been supported, if not directly initiated, by our own colleagues in the house of medicine. In this article, we describe some of the threats and challenges confronting independent GI practice.
Anesthesia services
In April 2016, the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists (FSA) made headlines by drawing attention to its role as the relator in a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit that it had filed against more than 50 physicians, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and anesthesia entities. This legal action — which the FSA filed in October 2013 but remained under seal until earlier this year — alleged that the defendants perpetrated Medicare and Medicaid fraud through violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. In this lawsuit, the FSA specifically targeted the company model used to provide anesthesia services. Based on publicly available documents, the case currently is in its early stages, although the FSA has made it clear that it views the lawsuit as a blueprint for attacking integrated anesthesia services.
The FSA’s qui tam action in Florida is part of a broader agenda by those who seek to undermine the integrated care model that enables gastroenterologists and other physician specialists to integrate anesthesia services into lawful care models. A website describing the Florida qui tam action hailed the American Society of Anesthesiology for having “repeatedly petitioned the Office of the Inspector General, brought the issue up with Congressional leaders and executive branch regulators, and provided information and legal resources to its members.”3 These efforts to undermine integrated, coordinated care at the federal level also have extended to the state level, in which efforts have been made in front of licensing boards and state legislatures – albeit unsuccessfully – to restrict the integration of anesthesia services.
In-Office Ancillary Services Exception
The In-Office Ancillary Services Exception (IOASE) to the federal physician self-referral statute (the Stark Law), allows physician practices to provide certain services, including diagnostic imaging and anatomic pathology, in an integrated and coordinated fashion within their respective practices when strict criteria are met.
Not surprisingly, competing providers of these services have long fought for the elimination of the IOASE. In 2013, Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced the Promoting Integrity in Medicare Act. This bill sought to eliminate those legal protections for providing those integrated medical services under the IOASE. Vigorous support for the legislation was provided by a group called the Alliance for Integrity in Medicine, a coalition of organizations including the College of American Pathologists, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, and the American College of Radiology. Although that bill did not even receive a vote during the last Congress, Representative Speier has re-introduced it in this current session, and continues to lobby aggressively in support of this legislation. President Obama’s budget for 2016, as the President’s budget proposal had done for the past several years, also included elimination of the IOASE provision. Extensive advocacy efforts by a broad range of specialty organizations have been instrumental to date in defeating this proposal. A study commissioned by the Digestive Health Physicians Association,4 using Medicare data, showed that GI-related anatomic pathology services actually increased more slowly in professional settings (physician offices and laboratories), at an annual rate of 1.2% from 2009 to 2013, compared with the outpatient hospital setting of 3.5% during that same period. Efforts to restrict practice integration similarly are being made at the state level. In California, legislation to eliminate the IOASE under the State’s self-referral law was introduced in 2014. Coordinated efforts by California patient- and physician-interest groups were successful in educating legislators on the value of the integrated care mode and the bill was soundly defeated.
Medicare Part B Drug Benefit
In March 2016, a new threat to integrated care in GI surfaced when the CMS released a proposed rule that would test a new Medicare Part B payment model for infused drugs including infliximab and vedolizumab. Under the proposal, the CMS would reduce the current reimbursement of 6% above average sales price (ASP) to ASP plus 2.5%, plus a flat fee of $16.85 per infusion. CMS calculations in this proposal failed to include the mandatory 2% sequestration of Medicare payments under the Budget Control Act, which means that the actual reimbursement will be less than 1% over ASP. Because many practices are unable to negotiate discounts for these drugs, unintended consequences of this proposal may disrupt care coordination efforts, resulting in movement of infusions performed in the office setting into the more costly hospital setting. Perversely, although the stated intent of this proposal was to reduce incentives for prescribing more expensive drugs, infused biologic agents are actually treatments of last choice for many inflammatory bowel disease patients.
In the absence of less-expensive alternatives, this proposed change in reimbursement likely will reduce access to effective therapy for some of our sickest patients and will not reduce costs. It is hoped that the vigorous advocacy by a coalition of more than 300 medical societies and patient-interest groups along with a majority of members of Congress may result in modifications to this proposal when the final rule is released later this year.
Stark Law
The Stark Law, commonly known as the Physician Self-Referral Law, originally was passed by Congress in 1989 and was substantially amended last in 1993. The Stark Law was enacted to address concerns of potential overuse or inappropriate use of services in a fee-for-service payment system. Health care delivery has changed dramatically since the Stark law was passed 27 years ago, but this statute has not kept pace and is incompatible with new and innovative delivery models that now mandate a shift from fee-for-service payment models to value-based care and the development of risk-sharing arrangements and bundling of services. In 2011, the CMS created a set of waivers for Accountable Care Organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, but these waivers do not apply to many of the alternative payment models under development by independent physicians.
In the past year, Congress repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 were designed to move our health care system away from fee for service (volume) and toward payment for value. The current Stark Law was created to control arrangements in a fee-for-service system, but the Stark Law now obstructs the ability of physicians in independent practices to coordinate care and work as teams across specialties and with their colleagues who care for patients in other sites of service such as hospitals and academic medical centers.
Congress and CMS recently have heard from dozens of physician organizations, including all of the GI societies, about the need to modernize the Stark Law (by way of updates to the Stark statute and its corresponding regulations) to keep pace with the changes in health care delivery and to ensure successful implementation of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. The changes sought include modifications to the definition of the term group practice to permit coordinated care across specialties and sites of service as well as to promote value-based compensation for all physicians.
Conclusions
To maximally amplify our voices as well our ability to effect positive change, gastroenterologists and other specialists should be actively engaged with the GI societies to help influence those changes proposed. Joining together will facilitate the adaptation by practices to change as it is mandated. The American Gastroenterological Association has long advocated for independent practices promoting optimal patient care delivery. Working cooperatively and collectively with colleagues in all GI professional organizations will enhance our ability to advance the best interests of our patients and our practices.
References
1. Great American Physician Survey 2013. Available from: Physicianspractice.com. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
2. Lowes, R. New Medicare penalty hits small groups, solo physicians hardest. Medscape Medical News. April 28, 2016;
3. The Anesthesia Company Model - FAQs. Available from: http://www.fsahq.org/anesthesia-company-model-faqs. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
4. Milliman White Paper, Medicare anatomic pathology utilization 2009-2013. Available: http://www.dhpassociation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/milliman-03-2009-2013-medicare-utilization-analysis.pdf. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
Dr. Rosenberg is a board-certified gastroenterologist who is currently the president of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Highland Park, Ill; Dr Kim is a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology, P.C., Lone Tree, Colo.; and Dr. Ketover is a gastroenterologist and is president and CEO of Minnesota Gastroenterology, P.A.; St. Paul. The authors disclose no conflicts.
The practice of gastroenterology is challenging for community physicians, those employed in multi-specialty clinics or large health care systems and those in academic health centers. Unique challenges confront independent GI practices, and there are mounting regulatory, financial, and operational barriers. Election results of 2016 have thrown us into an even more confusing future. In this month’s Road Ahead column, national GI leaders summarize the major challenges facing independent practices. Each leads (or has led) large GI practices and each has extensive experience with the policies, politics, payers, and pitfalls that impact our specialty. They have written a clear and helpful article for all physicians trying to maintain their independence and patient-focused practices. I have worked in many settings from the VA, to small and then large, independent practice, within a health system and in 2 academic medical centers. There is much to treasure in every type of practice and also many challenges. Physician leaders, both old and young, need to be informed and active in shaping medical policy.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Editor in Chief
Physicians practicing in independent settings report greater satisfaction with their careers compared with those employed in hospital systems. In a recent survey,1 nearly two-thirds of independent practitioners strongly agreed with the statement, “I like being a physician,” compared with approximately half of those employed by hospital systems. The rapid pace of change in care delivery is forcing all caregivers to modify how they provide care. For physicians practicing in independent settings, understanding, reacting, and adapting to these changes is especially challenging.
It is particularly difficult for physicians and practices to remain abreast and cognizant of the ever-changing rules governing how we deliver care for our patients. The Digestive Health Physicians Association was formed 2 years ago to provide an active voice specifically for independent gastroenterology (GI) practices. The mission of the Digestive Health Physicians Association is to promote and protect the high-quality and cost-efficient care provided in the integrated GI practice model.
In the past decade, meeting the goal of the Triple Aim (improving population health, improving patient experience of care, and reducing the per-capita cost of health care) has become a central tenet of our national health policy strategy, especially since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Achieving the goals of the Triple Aim and complying with the changes and new requirements challenges all gastroenterologists, but particularly those working in the independent practice setting, and especially those in small group practices. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently estimated that under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, payment reductions resulting from the first year of reporting in 2017 will occur in 87% of solo practices, in 70% of groups with 2 to 9 physicians, and in 60% of groups with 10 to 24 physicians.2
Preparing yourself and your practice for the changes ahead will require an understanding of the rules, an assessment of your practice’s readiness, and the creation of a plan for compliance to ensure success.
The care model has undergone major changes in the past decade. The development of regional hospital systems has resulted in increasing numbers of employed physicians. Independent gastroenterology practices also have made changes in how they provide care. Vertical integration by independent practices has been a major, positive, and continuing development. As practices have grown more sophisticated with greater areas of specialization, they are increasingly capable of providing services directly to their patients rather than outsourcing them to external providers. Beginning first with endoscopic procedures and now extending to anesthesia, pathology, infusion, and other critical services, increased integration of services across the entire continuum of care has led to improved efficiency and care coordination, benefitting patients with improved outcomes as well as lower costs to our health care system.
The benefits and successes of practice integration, unfortunately, also have made vertically integrated practices a target for regulators and policy makers. Attacks on the integrated delivery model in gastroenterology have at times been supported, if not directly initiated, by our own colleagues in the house of medicine. In this article, we describe some of the threats and challenges confronting independent GI practice.
Anesthesia services
In April 2016, the Florida Society of Anesthesiologists (FSA) made headlines by drawing attention to its role as the relator in a qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuit that it had filed against more than 50 physicians, Ambulatory Surgery Centers, and anesthesia entities. This legal action — which the FSA filed in October 2013 but remained under seal until earlier this year — alleged that the defendants perpetrated Medicare and Medicaid fraud through violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. In this lawsuit, the FSA specifically targeted the company model used to provide anesthesia services. Based on publicly available documents, the case currently is in its early stages, although the FSA has made it clear that it views the lawsuit as a blueprint for attacking integrated anesthesia services.
The FSA’s qui tam action in Florida is part of a broader agenda by those who seek to undermine the integrated care model that enables gastroenterologists and other physician specialists to integrate anesthesia services into lawful care models. A website describing the Florida qui tam action hailed the American Society of Anesthesiology for having “repeatedly petitioned the Office of the Inspector General, brought the issue up with Congressional leaders and executive branch regulators, and provided information and legal resources to its members.”3 These efforts to undermine integrated, coordinated care at the federal level also have extended to the state level, in which efforts have been made in front of licensing boards and state legislatures – albeit unsuccessfully – to restrict the integration of anesthesia services.
In-Office Ancillary Services Exception
The In-Office Ancillary Services Exception (IOASE) to the federal physician self-referral statute (the Stark Law), allows physician practices to provide certain services, including diagnostic imaging and anatomic pathology, in an integrated and coordinated fashion within their respective practices when strict criteria are met.
Not surprisingly, competing providers of these services have long fought for the elimination of the IOASE. In 2013, Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced the Promoting Integrity in Medicare Act. This bill sought to eliminate those legal protections for providing those integrated medical services under the IOASE. Vigorous support for the legislation was provided by a group called the Alliance for Integrity in Medicine, a coalition of organizations including the College of American Pathologists, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, and the American College of Radiology. Although that bill did not even receive a vote during the last Congress, Representative Speier has re-introduced it in this current session, and continues to lobby aggressively in support of this legislation. President Obama’s budget for 2016, as the President’s budget proposal had done for the past several years, also included elimination of the IOASE provision. Extensive advocacy efforts by a broad range of specialty organizations have been instrumental to date in defeating this proposal. A study commissioned by the Digestive Health Physicians Association,4 using Medicare data, showed that GI-related anatomic pathology services actually increased more slowly in professional settings (physician offices and laboratories), at an annual rate of 1.2% from 2009 to 2013, compared with the outpatient hospital setting of 3.5% during that same period. Efforts to restrict practice integration similarly are being made at the state level. In California, legislation to eliminate the IOASE under the State’s self-referral law was introduced in 2014. Coordinated efforts by California patient- and physician-interest groups were successful in educating legislators on the value of the integrated care mode and the bill was soundly defeated.
Medicare Part B Drug Benefit
In March 2016, a new threat to integrated care in GI surfaced when the CMS released a proposed rule that would test a new Medicare Part B payment model for infused drugs including infliximab and vedolizumab. Under the proposal, the CMS would reduce the current reimbursement of 6% above average sales price (ASP) to ASP plus 2.5%, plus a flat fee of $16.85 per infusion. CMS calculations in this proposal failed to include the mandatory 2% sequestration of Medicare payments under the Budget Control Act, which means that the actual reimbursement will be less than 1% over ASP. Because many practices are unable to negotiate discounts for these drugs, unintended consequences of this proposal may disrupt care coordination efforts, resulting in movement of infusions performed in the office setting into the more costly hospital setting. Perversely, although the stated intent of this proposal was to reduce incentives for prescribing more expensive drugs, infused biologic agents are actually treatments of last choice for many inflammatory bowel disease patients.
In the absence of less-expensive alternatives, this proposed change in reimbursement likely will reduce access to effective therapy for some of our sickest patients and will not reduce costs. It is hoped that the vigorous advocacy by a coalition of more than 300 medical societies and patient-interest groups along with a majority of members of Congress may result in modifications to this proposal when the final rule is released later this year.
Stark Law
The Stark Law, commonly known as the Physician Self-Referral Law, originally was passed by Congress in 1989 and was substantially amended last in 1993. The Stark Law was enacted to address concerns of potential overuse or inappropriate use of services in a fee-for-service payment system. Health care delivery has changed dramatically since the Stark law was passed 27 years ago, but this statute has not kept pace and is incompatible with new and innovative delivery models that now mandate a shift from fee-for-service payment models to value-based care and the development of risk-sharing arrangements and bundling of services. In 2011, the CMS created a set of waivers for Accountable Care Organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, but these waivers do not apply to many of the alternative payment models under development by independent physicians.
In the past year, Congress repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate formula. Both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 were designed to move our health care system away from fee for service (volume) and toward payment for value. The current Stark Law was created to control arrangements in a fee-for-service system, but the Stark Law now obstructs the ability of physicians in independent practices to coordinate care and work as teams across specialties and with their colleagues who care for patients in other sites of service such as hospitals and academic medical centers.
Congress and CMS recently have heard from dozens of physician organizations, including all of the GI societies, about the need to modernize the Stark Law (by way of updates to the Stark statute and its corresponding regulations) to keep pace with the changes in health care delivery and to ensure successful implementation of the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. The changes sought include modifications to the definition of the term group practice to permit coordinated care across specialties and sites of service as well as to promote value-based compensation for all physicians.
Conclusions
To maximally amplify our voices as well our ability to effect positive change, gastroenterologists and other specialists should be actively engaged with the GI societies to help influence those changes proposed. Joining together will facilitate the adaptation by practices to change as it is mandated. The American Gastroenterological Association has long advocated for independent practices promoting optimal patient care delivery. Working cooperatively and collectively with colleagues in all GI professional organizations will enhance our ability to advance the best interests of our patients and our practices.
References
1. Great American Physician Survey 2013. Available from: Physicianspractice.com. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
2. Lowes, R. New Medicare penalty hits small groups, solo physicians hardest. Medscape Medical News. April 28, 2016;
3. The Anesthesia Company Model - FAQs. Available from: http://www.fsahq.org/anesthesia-company-model-faqs. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
4. Milliman White Paper, Medicare anatomic pathology utilization 2009-2013. Available: http://www.dhpassociation.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/milliman-03-2009-2013-medicare-utilization-analysis.pdf. Accessed: May 8, 2016.
Dr. Rosenberg is a board-certified gastroenterologist who is currently the president of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Highland Park, Ill; Dr Kim is a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology, P.C., Lone Tree, Colo.; and Dr. Ketover is a gastroenterologist and is president and CEO of Minnesota Gastroenterology, P.A.; St. Paul. The authors disclose no conflicts.
My mundane genetic testing results
I’ve never been particularly curious about my genetic background. We have a pretty clear family history that I’m of central European and Russian descent, with my ancestors coming over in groups between 1900 and 1938.
Recently, my mother decided she wanted more genetic information on us, so she paid $99 for us to send saliva samples to a company that advertises such services.
A few weeks went by. You read about people who find out they have a genetic background that’s quite surprising. I began to wonder: Would there be some giant family history shocker when the results came in?
I’ve since spoken to others who had paid for this service and found most had the same experience. The test confirmed what was already well known, except for one friend whose results suggested a trace of Polynesian blood somewhere in his background. He believes this was likely artefactual, though he enjoys the idea that somewhere in history a Tongan warrior was blown off course at sea and somehow ended up in Odessa, Ukraine.
Of course, as I’ve now learned, that’s only the start of things. These days, I get emails advertising a more detailed panel (for an additional fee), looking for genetic markers for disease and more obscure traits. I also receive the occasional one from someone who, through the company’s anonymous servers, thinks they may be related to me.
I don’t answer either of those. I have no desire to expand my family circle beyond what it already is.
As for the disease testing? Not interested. Yes, some genetic tests may be helpful in making better choices, but the majority, at least to me, are still a work in progress. We deal with both false negatives and false positives in medicine. I routinely discourage my patients from spending money on unproven testing and treatments and have no desire to do the same myself. Maybe someday it will be worth the additional dollars, but I’m not convinced it’s there.
Money is, for better or worse, the driving force for all technologies, medical and otherwise. Maybe my $99 investment will help pay dividends down the road for someone, but today it only resulted in a shoulder shrug and chuckle at what I already knew.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I’ve never been particularly curious about my genetic background. We have a pretty clear family history that I’m of central European and Russian descent, with my ancestors coming over in groups between 1900 and 1938.
Recently, my mother decided she wanted more genetic information on us, so she paid $99 for us to send saliva samples to a company that advertises such services.
A few weeks went by. You read about people who find out they have a genetic background that’s quite surprising. I began to wonder: Would there be some giant family history shocker when the results came in?
I’ve since spoken to others who had paid for this service and found most had the same experience. The test confirmed what was already well known, except for one friend whose results suggested a trace of Polynesian blood somewhere in his background. He believes this was likely artefactual, though he enjoys the idea that somewhere in history a Tongan warrior was blown off course at sea and somehow ended up in Odessa, Ukraine.
Of course, as I’ve now learned, that’s only the start of things. These days, I get emails advertising a more detailed panel (for an additional fee), looking for genetic markers for disease and more obscure traits. I also receive the occasional one from someone who, through the company’s anonymous servers, thinks they may be related to me.
I don’t answer either of those. I have no desire to expand my family circle beyond what it already is.
As for the disease testing? Not interested. Yes, some genetic tests may be helpful in making better choices, but the majority, at least to me, are still a work in progress. We deal with both false negatives and false positives in medicine. I routinely discourage my patients from spending money on unproven testing and treatments and have no desire to do the same myself. Maybe someday it will be worth the additional dollars, but I’m not convinced it’s there.
Money is, for better or worse, the driving force for all technologies, medical and otherwise. Maybe my $99 investment will help pay dividends down the road for someone, but today it only resulted in a shoulder shrug and chuckle at what I already knew.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
I’ve never been particularly curious about my genetic background. We have a pretty clear family history that I’m of central European and Russian descent, with my ancestors coming over in groups between 1900 and 1938.
Recently, my mother decided she wanted more genetic information on us, so she paid $99 for us to send saliva samples to a company that advertises such services.
A few weeks went by. You read about people who find out they have a genetic background that’s quite surprising. I began to wonder: Would there be some giant family history shocker when the results came in?
I’ve since spoken to others who had paid for this service and found most had the same experience. The test confirmed what was already well known, except for one friend whose results suggested a trace of Polynesian blood somewhere in his background. He believes this was likely artefactual, though he enjoys the idea that somewhere in history a Tongan warrior was blown off course at sea and somehow ended up in Odessa, Ukraine.
Of course, as I’ve now learned, that’s only the start of things. These days, I get emails advertising a more detailed panel (for an additional fee), looking for genetic markers for disease and more obscure traits. I also receive the occasional one from someone who, through the company’s anonymous servers, thinks they may be related to me.
I don’t answer either of those. I have no desire to expand my family circle beyond what it already is.
As for the disease testing? Not interested. Yes, some genetic tests may be helpful in making better choices, but the majority, at least to me, are still a work in progress. We deal with both false negatives and false positives in medicine. I routinely discourage my patients from spending money on unproven testing and treatments and have no desire to do the same myself. Maybe someday it will be worth the additional dollars, but I’m not convinced it’s there.
Money is, for better or worse, the driving force for all technologies, medical and otherwise. Maybe my $99 investment will help pay dividends down the road for someone, but today it only resulted in a shoulder shrug and chuckle at what I already knew.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
How to work with specialists in value-based care
The typical primary care physician has a patient base that consumes $10 million of health care a year. Yet the PCP receives only 6%-7% of those payments, with the rest of the costs resulting largely from the PCP’s referrals or lack of PCP care management of that patient.
The average PCP makes 1,000 referrals a year. Often, the referee specialist or facility not only does not coordinate with the PCP’s patient-centered medical home, they make their own downstream referrals.
A revolution in your compensation is underway. Under MACRA and other accountable care models, providers across the continuum of care are now being held responsible for the overall costs of those patients, not just their charges.
This is still hard to grasp, isn’t it? I was recently talking to a preeminent primary care physician who was an active member of an accountable care organization board of directors. I was fairly excited about the new impact this highly professional community leader could have on patients, now that he was in the PCP-driven ACO, not to mention his shared savings payment opportunities.
I was on a roll until he said, “But Bo, I’m already as efficient in treating patients as I can get.” He was still fighting the barriers you all face to do the best he could under the circumstances for the patients in his office each day.
Later, however, on a better day for me, we were working together on a cardiac care white paper. The physician leader told me, “I get it now – the biggest value-adding impact I might have is for the patient I don’t ever see.”
The above statistics show just what an opportunity you have in the new value care.
You can legally control referrals and patient care coordination with specialists. They don’t have to be in your ACO. You don’t even need to be in an ACO to take advantage of high-value referrals under the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program under MACRA. But how?
Let’s start by assuming the specialist you need to refer to is not in your ACO. You might be able to do this without an ACO, but it’s hard to get the critical mass of primary care physicians. If you’re under the Medicare Shared Savings Program or Next Gen initiative, there are important Stark Law and antikickback liability waivers that would benefit you by being in an ACO.
Otherwise, you should consider a high-value referral affiliation agreement.
If a critical mass of primary care physicians can access data that create a short list of high-value specialists, they can put them on the high-value specialist list. Specialists do not need to get part of the shared savings pool or other financial incentives – just referrals because of their high-quality and high-efficiency care. A superstar specialist or acute care or post–acute care facility may ultimately be invited into the ACO as a full participant.
The specialist/facility basically agrees to coordinate all care with the medical home and comanage that care with you. The agreement specifies that they will observe the care protocols of the ACO for that disease state. The provider will share data and agree to be monitored.
What is a high-value specialist/facility? The current common approach is to look at the insurance companies’ top tiers, but they are often too weighted to allowed charges. It’s really about being care coordinators and about readmission and complication rates.
For example, some bundled-payment specialists are selected solely based on the surgeons’ and anesthesiologists’ complication rates. If fees are mentioned at all, they are well down the list.
Of course, if the specialist is in the ACO with the primary care physician, this can be done internally.
How do you find value-added protocols involving specialists? I was lucky to be on a multiyear grant program whereby I worked with many primary care physicians and specialists to create white papers setting out high-value, practical initiatives. There are also guides for internists and family physicians. A condition of the grant was that they all can be accessed free of charge; they’re available at www.tac-consortium.org/resources.
This is a new day. Primary care is being asked to lead health care delivery today and be paid to do it. You are being rewarded or punished financially now based on the overall costs of your patients. You must have specialists and facilities coordinate with you in this new health care model. We have attempted to provide a road map to assist you on your journey.
Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at bbobbitt@smithlaw.com or 919-821-6612.
The typical primary care physician has a patient base that consumes $10 million of health care a year. Yet the PCP receives only 6%-7% of those payments, with the rest of the costs resulting largely from the PCP’s referrals or lack of PCP care management of that patient.
The average PCP makes 1,000 referrals a year. Often, the referee specialist or facility not only does not coordinate with the PCP’s patient-centered medical home, they make their own downstream referrals.
A revolution in your compensation is underway. Under MACRA and other accountable care models, providers across the continuum of care are now being held responsible for the overall costs of those patients, not just their charges.
This is still hard to grasp, isn’t it? I was recently talking to a preeminent primary care physician who was an active member of an accountable care organization board of directors. I was fairly excited about the new impact this highly professional community leader could have on patients, now that he was in the PCP-driven ACO, not to mention his shared savings payment opportunities.
I was on a roll until he said, “But Bo, I’m already as efficient in treating patients as I can get.” He was still fighting the barriers you all face to do the best he could under the circumstances for the patients in his office each day.
Later, however, on a better day for me, we were working together on a cardiac care white paper. The physician leader told me, “I get it now – the biggest value-adding impact I might have is for the patient I don’t ever see.”
The above statistics show just what an opportunity you have in the new value care.
You can legally control referrals and patient care coordination with specialists. They don’t have to be in your ACO. You don’t even need to be in an ACO to take advantage of high-value referrals under the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program under MACRA. But how?
Let’s start by assuming the specialist you need to refer to is not in your ACO. You might be able to do this without an ACO, but it’s hard to get the critical mass of primary care physicians. If you’re under the Medicare Shared Savings Program or Next Gen initiative, there are important Stark Law and antikickback liability waivers that would benefit you by being in an ACO.
Otherwise, you should consider a high-value referral affiliation agreement.
If a critical mass of primary care physicians can access data that create a short list of high-value specialists, they can put them on the high-value specialist list. Specialists do not need to get part of the shared savings pool or other financial incentives – just referrals because of their high-quality and high-efficiency care. A superstar specialist or acute care or post–acute care facility may ultimately be invited into the ACO as a full participant.
The specialist/facility basically agrees to coordinate all care with the medical home and comanage that care with you. The agreement specifies that they will observe the care protocols of the ACO for that disease state. The provider will share data and agree to be monitored.
What is a high-value specialist/facility? The current common approach is to look at the insurance companies’ top tiers, but they are often too weighted to allowed charges. It’s really about being care coordinators and about readmission and complication rates.
For example, some bundled-payment specialists are selected solely based on the surgeons’ and anesthesiologists’ complication rates. If fees are mentioned at all, they are well down the list.
Of course, if the specialist is in the ACO with the primary care physician, this can be done internally.
How do you find value-added protocols involving specialists? I was lucky to be on a multiyear grant program whereby I worked with many primary care physicians and specialists to create white papers setting out high-value, practical initiatives. There are also guides for internists and family physicians. A condition of the grant was that they all can be accessed free of charge; they’re available at www.tac-consortium.org/resources.
This is a new day. Primary care is being asked to lead health care delivery today and be paid to do it. You are being rewarded or punished financially now based on the overall costs of your patients. You must have specialists and facilities coordinate with you in this new health care model. We have attempted to provide a road map to assist you on your journey.
Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at bbobbitt@smithlaw.com or 919-821-6612.
The typical primary care physician has a patient base that consumes $10 million of health care a year. Yet the PCP receives only 6%-7% of those payments, with the rest of the costs resulting largely from the PCP’s referrals or lack of PCP care management of that patient.
The average PCP makes 1,000 referrals a year. Often, the referee specialist or facility not only does not coordinate with the PCP’s patient-centered medical home, they make their own downstream referrals.
A revolution in your compensation is underway. Under MACRA and other accountable care models, providers across the continuum of care are now being held responsible for the overall costs of those patients, not just their charges.
This is still hard to grasp, isn’t it? I was recently talking to a preeminent primary care physician who was an active member of an accountable care organization board of directors. I was fairly excited about the new impact this highly professional community leader could have on patients, now that he was in the PCP-driven ACO, not to mention his shared savings payment opportunities.
I was on a roll until he said, “But Bo, I’m already as efficient in treating patients as I can get.” He was still fighting the barriers you all face to do the best he could under the circumstances for the patients in his office each day.
Later, however, on a better day for me, we were working together on a cardiac care white paper. The physician leader told me, “I get it now – the biggest value-adding impact I might have is for the patient I don’t ever see.”
The above statistics show just what an opportunity you have in the new value care.
You can legally control referrals and patient care coordination with specialists. They don’t have to be in your ACO. You don’t even need to be in an ACO to take advantage of high-value referrals under the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program under MACRA. But how?
Let’s start by assuming the specialist you need to refer to is not in your ACO. You might be able to do this without an ACO, but it’s hard to get the critical mass of primary care physicians. If you’re under the Medicare Shared Savings Program or Next Gen initiative, there are important Stark Law and antikickback liability waivers that would benefit you by being in an ACO.
Otherwise, you should consider a high-value referral affiliation agreement.
If a critical mass of primary care physicians can access data that create a short list of high-value specialists, they can put them on the high-value specialist list. Specialists do not need to get part of the shared savings pool or other financial incentives – just referrals because of their high-quality and high-efficiency care. A superstar specialist or acute care or post–acute care facility may ultimately be invited into the ACO as a full participant.
The specialist/facility basically agrees to coordinate all care with the medical home and comanage that care with you. The agreement specifies that they will observe the care protocols of the ACO for that disease state. The provider will share data and agree to be monitored.
What is a high-value specialist/facility? The current common approach is to look at the insurance companies’ top tiers, but they are often too weighted to allowed charges. It’s really about being care coordinators and about readmission and complication rates.
For example, some bundled-payment specialists are selected solely based on the surgeons’ and anesthesiologists’ complication rates. If fees are mentioned at all, they are well down the list.
Of course, if the specialist is in the ACO with the primary care physician, this can be done internally.
How do you find value-added protocols involving specialists? I was lucky to be on a multiyear grant program whereby I worked with many primary care physicians and specialists to create white papers setting out high-value, practical initiatives. There are also guides for internists and family physicians. A condition of the grant was that they all can be accessed free of charge; they’re available at www.tac-consortium.org/resources.
This is a new day. Primary care is being asked to lead health care delivery today and be paid to do it. You are being rewarded or punished financially now based on the overall costs of your patients. You must have specialists and facilities coordinate with you in this new health care model. We have attempted to provide a road map to assist you on your journey.
Mr. Bobbitt is head of the health law group at the Smith Anderson law firm in Raleigh, N.C. He is president of Value Health Partners, LLC, a health care strategic consulting company. He has years of experience assisting physicians form integrated delivery systems. He has spoken and written nationally to primary care physicians on the strategies and practicalities of forming or joining ACOs. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at bbobbitt@smithlaw.com or 919-821-6612.