User login
How physicians can provide better care to transgender patients
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.
Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?
Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.
The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.
What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?
Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.
A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.
There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room. A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.
Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?
Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.
It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.
Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?
Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.
However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.
But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.
What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?
Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.
Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.
What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?
Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.
Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.
Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.
Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?
Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.
Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?
Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.
People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.
Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.
Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.
Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?
Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.
That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Deaths tied to reprocessed urologic endoscopes, FDA warns
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.
The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.
Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.
“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.
Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.
The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.
It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.
The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.
In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.
The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.
The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.
Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.
“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.
Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.
The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.
It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.
The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.
In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.
The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.
The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.
Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.
“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.
Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.
The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.
It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.
The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.
In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.
The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study suggests no added risk of blood clots in COVID-19 outpatients
The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.
“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.
“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.
The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.
Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.
“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.
For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.
“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”
Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.
Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.
“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”
In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.
Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.
Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.
Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.
“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.
“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.
The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.
Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.
“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.
For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.
“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”
Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.
Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.
“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”
In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.
Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.
Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.
Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not significantly different from patients without the infectious disease, according to a new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
National Institutes of Health guidelines recommend blood thinners to prevent blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. However, the new study provides more insight on the best treatment approach for COVID-19 outpatients.
“[COVID-19’s] rapid global progression and impact has caused us to make and modify treatment decisions at a pace that we never have in modern medicine,” study author Nareg Roubinian, MD, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.
“As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Roubinian added.
The increased risk of blood clots in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic. In fact, one study published in November 2020 found that more than half of patients hospitalized with the illness have prothrombotic antiphospholipid (aPL) autoantibodies in their blood, which could contribute to venous and arterial thromboembolism.
Although it was clear many hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were developing more clots, researchers of the current study were not sure if this trend would also be seen in outpatients.
“Most people with COVID-19 do not need to be hospitalized, and we needed to know how often patients outside the hospital were having blood clots,” said Dr. Roubinian.
For the study, Dr. Roubinian and colleagues examined data on 220,588 patients who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan and were tested for COVID-19 between Feb. 25 and Aug. 31, 2020. They then reported on the 30-day incidence of outpatient and hospital-associated blood clots following the COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients who were asymptomatic at the time of testing or had received anticoagulants within the last year were excluded.
“We knew from other studies that patients with COVID-19 often get sicker in the first few weeks after infection. What we didn’t know was whether COVID-19 patients were developing blood clots but not pneumonia or were developing blood clots at the same time as they developed pneumonia,” said Dr. Roubinian, an intensive care doctor with the Permanente Medical Group in Oakland, Calif. “Following the patients for 30 days allowed us to focus on the time period from infection to when blood clots were most likely to develop.”
Researchers found that of the cohort who took the COVID-19 test, 11.8% had a positive result. Within 30 days of the COVID-19 test, 0.8% of patients with a positive result were diagnosed with VTE compared to 0.5% of those who received a negative test result. They also found that viral testing took place in an outpatient setting for 59.1% of the patients with a positive viral test who later developed VTE. Of those patients, 76.1% had to be hospitalized.
Dr. Roubinian said he was surprised to see that the blood clotting in outpatients with COVID-19 was similar in frequency to what he saw in patients without the infection.
“Our findings suggest that blood clots do occur in COVID-19 patients but not on a scale where we need to put all or many COVID outpatients on blood thinners,” he said. “As with other potential therapies for COVID-19, blood thinners need to be prospectively studied in a clinical trial to determine if they improve patient outcomes.”
In December 2020, three trials investigating the risk and benefits of increased levels of anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were paused because of safety issues. The trials would have enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients for whom therapeutic doses of anticoagulation drugs showed no benefit.
Anticoagulants are associated with bleeding risks, including prolonged nosebleeds and vomiting or coughing up blood.
Instead of prescribing the routine use of thromboprophylactic drugs to COVID-19 outpatients, Dr. Roubinian believes it would be helpful to learn how to determine whether a patient at risk of becoming sick or being hospitalized would benefit from being treated with such drugs.
Dr. Roubinian reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study.
FDA approves mirabegron to treat pediatric NDO
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for mirabegron (Myrbetriq/Myrbetriq Granules) to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), a bladder dysfunction related to neurologic impairment, in children aged 3 years and older.
This comes 1 year after the FDA approved solifenacin succinate, the first treatment of NDO in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.
The approval of the drug for these new indications is a “positive step” for the treatment of NDO in young patients, Christine P. Nguyen, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Urology, Obstetrics, and Gynecology, said in an FDA statement.
“Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules, works by a different mechanism of action from the currently approved treatments, providing a new treatment option for these young patients. We remain committed to facilitating the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for pediatric NDO patients,” Dr. Nguyen said.
NDO is a bladder dysfunction that frequently occurs in patients with congenital conditions, such as spina bifida. It also occurs in people who suffer from other diseases or injuries of the nervous system, such as multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Symptoms of the condition include urinary frequency and incontinence.
The condition is characterized by the overactivity of the bladder wall muscle, which is normally relaxed to allow storage of urine. Irregular bladder muscle contraction increases storage pressure and decreases the amount of urine the bladder can hold. This can also put the upper urinary tract at risk for deterioration and cause permanent damage to the kidneys.
The effectiveness of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules for pediatric NDO was determined in a study of 86 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years. The researchers found that after 24 weeks of treatment, the drug improved the patients’ bladder capacity, reduced the number of bladder wall muscle contractions, and improved the volume of urine that could be held. It also reduced the daily number of episodes of leakage.
Side effects of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules include urinary tract infection, cold symptoms, angioedema, constipation, and headache. The FDA said the drug may also increase blood pressure and may worsen blood pressure in patients who have a history of hypertension.
The FDA approved mirabegron in 2012 to treat overactive bladder in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for mirabegron (Myrbetriq/Myrbetriq Granules) to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), a bladder dysfunction related to neurologic impairment, in children aged 3 years and older.
This comes 1 year after the FDA approved solifenacin succinate, the first treatment of NDO in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.
The approval of the drug for these new indications is a “positive step” for the treatment of NDO in young patients, Christine P. Nguyen, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Urology, Obstetrics, and Gynecology, said in an FDA statement.
“Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules, works by a different mechanism of action from the currently approved treatments, providing a new treatment option for these young patients. We remain committed to facilitating the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for pediatric NDO patients,” Dr. Nguyen said.
NDO is a bladder dysfunction that frequently occurs in patients with congenital conditions, such as spina bifida. It also occurs in people who suffer from other diseases or injuries of the nervous system, such as multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Symptoms of the condition include urinary frequency and incontinence.
The condition is characterized by the overactivity of the bladder wall muscle, which is normally relaxed to allow storage of urine. Irregular bladder muscle contraction increases storage pressure and decreases the amount of urine the bladder can hold. This can also put the upper urinary tract at risk for deterioration and cause permanent damage to the kidneys.
The effectiveness of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules for pediatric NDO was determined in a study of 86 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years. The researchers found that after 24 weeks of treatment, the drug improved the patients’ bladder capacity, reduced the number of bladder wall muscle contractions, and improved the volume of urine that could be held. It also reduced the daily number of episodes of leakage.
Side effects of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules include urinary tract infection, cold symptoms, angioedema, constipation, and headache. The FDA said the drug may also increase blood pressure and may worsen blood pressure in patients who have a history of hypertension.
The FDA approved mirabegron in 2012 to treat overactive bladder in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for mirabegron (Myrbetriq/Myrbetriq Granules) to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), a bladder dysfunction related to neurologic impairment, in children aged 3 years and older.
This comes 1 year after the FDA approved solifenacin succinate, the first treatment of NDO in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.
The approval of the drug for these new indications is a “positive step” for the treatment of NDO in young patients, Christine P. Nguyen, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Urology, Obstetrics, and Gynecology, said in an FDA statement.
“Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules, works by a different mechanism of action from the currently approved treatments, providing a new treatment option for these young patients. We remain committed to facilitating the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for pediatric NDO patients,” Dr. Nguyen said.
NDO is a bladder dysfunction that frequently occurs in patients with congenital conditions, such as spina bifida. It also occurs in people who suffer from other diseases or injuries of the nervous system, such as multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury. Symptoms of the condition include urinary frequency and incontinence.
The condition is characterized by the overactivity of the bladder wall muscle, which is normally relaxed to allow storage of urine. Irregular bladder muscle contraction increases storage pressure and decreases the amount of urine the bladder can hold. This can also put the upper urinary tract at risk for deterioration and cause permanent damage to the kidneys.
The effectiveness of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules for pediatric NDO was determined in a study of 86 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years. The researchers found that after 24 weeks of treatment, the drug improved the patients’ bladder capacity, reduced the number of bladder wall muscle contractions, and improved the volume of urine that could be held. It also reduced the daily number of episodes of leakage.
Side effects of Myrbetriq and Myrbetriq Granules include urinary tract infection, cold symptoms, angioedema, constipation, and headache. The FDA said the drug may also increase blood pressure and may worsen blood pressure in patients who have a history of hypertension.
The FDA approved mirabegron in 2012 to treat overactive bladder in adults.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Politics has no place here,’ AAP says about transgender care
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement condemning state legislation introduced across the country that would prohibit the medical treatment of children who identify as transgender.
“Politics has no place here. Transgender children, like all children, just want to belong. We will fight state by state, in the courts, and on the national stage to make sure they know they do,” said the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization that recommends that youth who identify as transgender have access to comprehensive, gender-affirming and “developmentally appropriate” health care.
There has been a lot of controversy among physicians surrounding gender-affirming care for children. In 2019, three separate groups of physicians questioned the hormonal treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, saying more research is needed to support gender-affirming care recommendations from groups such as the AAP. In addition, California-based endocrinologist Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, called the use of puberty blockers – medication used to delay or prevent the onset of puberty – an “experiment” and “public health problem.”
Some of the bills circulating would prohibit gender-affirming care for children and penalize pediatricians and other physicians for providing such care. Other bills would prevent transgender youth from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Jason Rafferty, MD, a pediatrician who authored AAP’s 2018 policy statement encouraging pediatricians to provide gender-affirmative care to children and adolescents, said in an interview that these proposed state bills are targeting a vulnerable population at a vulnerable time.
“You have this marginalized group and right in the midst of a pandemic – and [social isolation] – and you have these policies coming out that are really targeting the most vulnerable,” said Dr. Rafferty, who practices at the Adolescent Healthcare Center at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence, R.I. “Some of the proposed policies would ensure that some of these transgender kids wouldn’t have access to basic medical care [or access to areas] where pediatricians are affirming these kids and creating a safe environment for them.”
M. Brett Cooper, MD, of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that the proposed state legislations are based on personal beliefs, not evidence-based care.
He said the AAP is speaking out because many of these proposed state legislatures are advancing bills that would affect gender-diverse children.
“Many of these bills are making it close to passing both chambers of a state legislature and thus sent to the governor for approval,” Dr. Cooper said. “In past legislative sessions, bills such as these have never it made out of committee in either a state House or state Senate.”
Early in March, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tweeted that she was “excited to sign” a bill that would prevent children who are transgender from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Meanwhile, previous studies have shown that teens whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth were more likely to report a suicide attempt, compared with cisgender youth. A 2015 study has attributed this increased risk of suicide to marginalization, social exclusion, and trauma. The bills being proposed may exacerbate this, according to Dr. Rafferty.
These bills point in the direction of approaches and models that research shows may be harmful to transgender children, he said.
“Beyond that, policies that are out there affecting participation in sports and other activities really just draw attention to these youth in unnecessary ways and really puts their physical and mental health at risk in a school environment,” he added.
“Whether it’s health care, school, community, or home [these policies] just really create a very hostile and dangerous environment toward a population that already is at significant risk,” Dr. Rafferty said.
The AAP’s clinical care guidelines for children who identify as transgender state that pediatricians who provide gender-affirmative care and speak with children and their families about gender issues help foster an environment of nurturance and support.
“Many people think that the care provided to gender diverse young people is rogue,” Dr. Cooper said. “Pediatric gender clinics are often either multidisciplinary or have a readily accessible team, including social work, mental health, and the physician. Medical care for gender diverse youth follows well-established standards of care.”
Dr. Rafferty said it is important for care providers to support children and teenagers who identify as transgender by creating a safe space and helping them identify what they need.
“There’s a lot out there that really tries to unite gender and biological sex together, saying that gender can be reduced to your anatomy,” Dr. Rafferty said. “But I think what we’re coming to appreciate is that our sense of identity is much more complex than simply our genes or biology.”
Dr. Rafferty is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr. Cooper is a columnist for Pediatric News and is on the board of trustees for the Texas Medical Association.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement condemning state legislation introduced across the country that would prohibit the medical treatment of children who identify as transgender.
“Politics has no place here. Transgender children, like all children, just want to belong. We will fight state by state, in the courts, and on the national stage to make sure they know they do,” said the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization that recommends that youth who identify as transgender have access to comprehensive, gender-affirming and “developmentally appropriate” health care.
There has been a lot of controversy among physicians surrounding gender-affirming care for children. In 2019, three separate groups of physicians questioned the hormonal treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, saying more research is needed to support gender-affirming care recommendations from groups such as the AAP. In addition, California-based endocrinologist Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, called the use of puberty blockers – medication used to delay or prevent the onset of puberty – an “experiment” and “public health problem.”
Some of the bills circulating would prohibit gender-affirming care for children and penalize pediatricians and other physicians for providing such care. Other bills would prevent transgender youth from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Jason Rafferty, MD, a pediatrician who authored AAP’s 2018 policy statement encouraging pediatricians to provide gender-affirmative care to children and adolescents, said in an interview that these proposed state bills are targeting a vulnerable population at a vulnerable time.
“You have this marginalized group and right in the midst of a pandemic – and [social isolation] – and you have these policies coming out that are really targeting the most vulnerable,” said Dr. Rafferty, who practices at the Adolescent Healthcare Center at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence, R.I. “Some of the proposed policies would ensure that some of these transgender kids wouldn’t have access to basic medical care [or access to areas] where pediatricians are affirming these kids and creating a safe environment for them.”
M. Brett Cooper, MD, of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that the proposed state legislations are based on personal beliefs, not evidence-based care.
He said the AAP is speaking out because many of these proposed state legislatures are advancing bills that would affect gender-diverse children.
“Many of these bills are making it close to passing both chambers of a state legislature and thus sent to the governor for approval,” Dr. Cooper said. “In past legislative sessions, bills such as these have never it made out of committee in either a state House or state Senate.”
Early in March, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tweeted that she was “excited to sign” a bill that would prevent children who are transgender from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Meanwhile, previous studies have shown that teens whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth were more likely to report a suicide attempt, compared with cisgender youth. A 2015 study has attributed this increased risk of suicide to marginalization, social exclusion, and trauma. The bills being proposed may exacerbate this, according to Dr. Rafferty.
These bills point in the direction of approaches and models that research shows may be harmful to transgender children, he said.
“Beyond that, policies that are out there affecting participation in sports and other activities really just draw attention to these youth in unnecessary ways and really puts their physical and mental health at risk in a school environment,” he added.
“Whether it’s health care, school, community, or home [these policies] just really create a very hostile and dangerous environment toward a population that already is at significant risk,” Dr. Rafferty said.
The AAP’s clinical care guidelines for children who identify as transgender state that pediatricians who provide gender-affirmative care and speak with children and their families about gender issues help foster an environment of nurturance and support.
“Many people think that the care provided to gender diverse young people is rogue,” Dr. Cooper said. “Pediatric gender clinics are often either multidisciplinary or have a readily accessible team, including social work, mental health, and the physician. Medical care for gender diverse youth follows well-established standards of care.”
Dr. Rafferty said it is important for care providers to support children and teenagers who identify as transgender by creating a safe space and helping them identify what they need.
“There’s a lot out there that really tries to unite gender and biological sex together, saying that gender can be reduced to your anatomy,” Dr. Rafferty said. “But I think what we’re coming to appreciate is that our sense of identity is much more complex than simply our genes or biology.”
Dr. Rafferty is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr. Cooper is a columnist for Pediatric News and is on the board of trustees for the Texas Medical Association.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a statement condemning state legislation introduced across the country that would prohibit the medical treatment of children who identify as transgender.
“Politics has no place here. Transgender children, like all children, just want to belong. We will fight state by state, in the courts, and on the national stage to make sure they know they do,” said the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization that recommends that youth who identify as transgender have access to comprehensive, gender-affirming and “developmentally appropriate” health care.
There has been a lot of controversy among physicians surrounding gender-affirming care for children. In 2019, three separate groups of physicians questioned the hormonal treatment of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, saying more research is needed to support gender-affirming care recommendations from groups such as the AAP. In addition, California-based endocrinologist Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, called the use of puberty blockers – medication used to delay or prevent the onset of puberty – an “experiment” and “public health problem.”
Some of the bills circulating would prohibit gender-affirming care for children and penalize pediatricians and other physicians for providing such care. Other bills would prevent transgender youth from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Jason Rafferty, MD, a pediatrician who authored AAP’s 2018 policy statement encouraging pediatricians to provide gender-affirmative care to children and adolescents, said in an interview that these proposed state bills are targeting a vulnerable population at a vulnerable time.
“You have this marginalized group and right in the midst of a pandemic – and [social isolation] – and you have these policies coming out that are really targeting the most vulnerable,” said Dr. Rafferty, who practices at the Adolescent Healthcare Center at Hasbro Children’s Hospital, Providence, R.I. “Some of the proposed policies would ensure that some of these transgender kids wouldn’t have access to basic medical care [or access to areas] where pediatricians are affirming these kids and creating a safe environment for them.”
M. Brett Cooper, MD, of pediatrics at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview that the proposed state legislations are based on personal beliefs, not evidence-based care.
He said the AAP is speaking out because many of these proposed state legislatures are advancing bills that would affect gender-diverse children.
“Many of these bills are making it close to passing both chambers of a state legislature and thus sent to the governor for approval,” Dr. Cooper said. “In past legislative sessions, bills such as these have never it made out of committee in either a state House or state Senate.”
Early in March, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem tweeted that she was “excited to sign” a bill that would prevent children who are transgender from participating in sports or on athletic teams according to their gender identity, requiring them to join teams aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Meanwhile, previous studies have shown that teens whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth were more likely to report a suicide attempt, compared with cisgender youth. A 2015 study has attributed this increased risk of suicide to marginalization, social exclusion, and trauma. The bills being proposed may exacerbate this, according to Dr. Rafferty.
These bills point in the direction of approaches and models that research shows may be harmful to transgender children, he said.
“Beyond that, policies that are out there affecting participation in sports and other activities really just draw attention to these youth in unnecessary ways and really puts their physical and mental health at risk in a school environment,” he added.
“Whether it’s health care, school, community, or home [these policies] just really create a very hostile and dangerous environment toward a population that already is at significant risk,” Dr. Rafferty said.
The AAP’s clinical care guidelines for children who identify as transgender state that pediatricians who provide gender-affirmative care and speak with children and their families about gender issues help foster an environment of nurturance and support.
“Many people think that the care provided to gender diverse young people is rogue,” Dr. Cooper said. “Pediatric gender clinics are often either multidisciplinary or have a readily accessible team, including social work, mental health, and the physician. Medical care for gender diverse youth follows well-established standards of care.”
Dr. Rafferty said it is important for care providers to support children and teenagers who identify as transgender by creating a safe space and helping them identify what they need.
“There’s a lot out there that really tries to unite gender and biological sex together, saying that gender can be reduced to your anatomy,” Dr. Rafferty said. “But I think what we’re coming to appreciate is that our sense of identity is much more complex than simply our genes or biology.”
Dr. Rafferty is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr. Cooper is a columnist for Pediatric News and is on the board of trustees for the Texas Medical Association.
Children with increased suicide risk are falling through the cracks
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
Children in the welfare system who died by suicide were twice as likely to receive mental health services within the 6 months before their death, according to a recent study published in Pediatrics.
“Health care settings that provide more robust mental health screening and suicide risk assessment are needed for youth with child welfare system involvement,” study author Donna Ruch, PhD, a research scientist at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said in an interview.
Researchers noted that integrating suicide prevention strategies in primary care and providing access to effective health services for this vulnerable group could be beneficial.
At-risk kids are falling through the cracks
Suicide is the second leading cause of death in children, adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. Children in the welfare system are four times more likely to have attempted suicide; however, research on suicide rates in this population is minimal.
“Kids in the child welfare system are so understudied and yet at such a high risk for suicide,” said Lisa Horowitz, PhD, clinical psychologist at the National Institutes of Health, who was not involved in the study. “A lot of kids pass through the health care system undetected.”
In an attempt to understand and prevent suicide in this group, Dr. Ruch and her team examined health service utilization patterns of children in the welfare system who committed suicide, compared with those in the system who did not die by suicide.
Researchers collected data on 120 deceased youth between the ages of 5 and 21 years old who had an open case in Ohio’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System between 2010 and 2017. For the purpose of the study, open cases were defined as investigated child maltreatment where the family received services or the child was removed from the home.
Researchers matched each child who died by suicide with 10 controls – children in the welfare system who did not commit suicide – based on sex, race, and ethnicity.
The findings revealed that 59.2% of suicide decedents had a diagnosed mental health condition, compared with 31.3% of the control group. Researchers also found that the suicide decedent group was more likely to have multiple mental health diagnoses, with a quarter of them having at least three diagnosed conditions.
Children who died by suicide were also more likely to have a history of self-harm and to have been placed in foster or kinship care.
“Existing research also suggests that known risk factors for youth suicide are more common in youth involved with the child welfare system. This includes mental health conditions, developmental delays, problematic family-related issues, and trauma,” said Dr. Ruch. “All of these factors may be compounded for youth who are removed from their homes.”
Dr. Ruch said it is likely that children who are removed from their homes and placed in foster care may not have consistent access to necessary health services, such as therapy, which may place them at an increased risk for suicidal behavior.
Robust prevention strategies needed
Researchers also found that 90% of children who died by suicide had a health care visit within 6 months of their deaths, compared with 69.4% of controls; 48% of those visits occurred 1 month before they died.
The frequency of health care services used by suicide decedents suggests that prevention strategies for children in the welfare system should be embedded in routine medical and mental health care.
“If we as mental health counselors allow these kids to pass through the health care system, it’s really further neglect,” said Dr. Horowitz, who wrote an accompanying commentary. “And these children already deal with abuse and neglect – we don’t need to further neglect them.”
Dr. Horowitz said health care providers could go over coping strategies and discuss how children deal with hard times and make sure they have access to suicide prevention resources, such as the suicide hotline.
Additionally, better coordination with health care systems and the child welfare system is necessary to make sure there are follow-ups and screenings for suicide and other mental health conditions.
It’s not one size fits all: There may be tailored suicide prevention strategies that work better,” Dr. Horowitz explained.
Dr. Ruch and her team also believe suicide prevention strategies such as the Zero Suicide approach – an initiative that aims to embed suicide prevention health and behavioral health care systems – as well as interventions focused on family preservation to reduce the chance of a child being removed from their home could also benefit children in the welfare system.
Dr. Ruch, the other authors of the study, and Dr. Horowitz disclosed no relevant financial conflicts,
Is pediatric subspecialty training financially worth it?
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.