MDedge Emergency Medicine

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A treatment used to treat acute COVID-19 infection has also been found to be effective against long COVID, a new small study has found. The research, which assessed the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, suggests relief may finally be ahead for millions of Americans with long COVID for whom treatment has remained elusive.

The study, published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, found three Florida patients with long COVID made complete — and sudden — recoveries after they were given the monoclonal antibody cocktail casirivimab/imdevimab (Regeneron).

“We were struck by how rapid and complete the remissions were,” said study coauthor Paul Pepe, MD, MPH, a professor of management, policy, and community health at the School of Public Health at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center. “We found that no matter how long the patients were sick for — whether it was 5, 8, or 18 months — within 5 days, they appeared to be completely cured.”

All three patients had been initially infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, in 2020 or the first half of 2021. They were given Regeneron either after a reinfection or exposure to COVID-19, as a preventative, at state-run COVID clinics in Florida.

“In each case, the infusions were given to help prevent their long COVID from worsening,” said Dr. Pepe.

The researchers collected medical histories for all three patients, asking about symptoms such as physical fatigue, exercise intolerance, chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, cognitive fatigue, and memory problems. They asked patients to rate symptoms pre-COVID (baseline), during the long COVID phase, post-vaccine, and finally a week after their monoclonal antibody treatment. They also interviewed family members.

They found that across the board, symptoms improved significantly and often completely vanished. Their loved ones corroborated these reports as well.

One of the patients, a 63-year-old Floridian woman, came down with a mild case of COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 that lasted about 2 weeks. But several weeks later, she developed extreme, debilitating fatigue, along with chest pain and shortness of breath.

“I was chasing my 6-pound Yorkie one day after she got loose, and I was struck with such intense chest pain I fell down,” the woman, asking not to be identified, said in an interview.

Her symptoms progressed to the point where she no longer felt safe babysitting her grandchildren or driving to the grocery store.

“My short-term memory was completely gone. I couldn’t even read more than a paragraph at a time,” she said.

When she was exposed to COVID-19 in October 2021, her doctor suggested Regeneron as a preventative. She agreed to it.

“I was terrified that a second round would leave me permanently disabled and stuck in bed for the rest of my life,” she said.

About 4 days after her monoclonal antibody treatment, she noticed that some of the brain fog that had persisted after COVID was lifting.

“By day 5, it felt almost like a heavy-weighted blanket had been lifted off of me,” she recalled. “I was able to take my dog for a walk and go to the grocery store. It felt like I had gone from 0 to 100. As quickly as I went downhill, I quickly went back up.”

Reasons for Recovery

Researchers have come up with a few theories about why monoclonal antibodies may help treat long COVID, said study coauthor Aileen Marty, MD, professor of translational medicine at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University. Among them:

• It stimulates the body to fight off any residual virus. “We suspect that many of these patients simply have levels of virus that are so low they can’t be picked up by conventional testing,” said Dr. Marty. “The virus lingers in their body and causes long COVID symptoms. The monoclonal antibodies can zero in on them and knock them out.” This may also help explain why some patients with long COVID reported a temporary improvement of symptoms after their COVID-19 vaccination.
• It combats dysfunctional antibodies. Another theory is that people with long COVID have symptoms “not because of residual virus but because of junky antibodies,” said Dr. Marty. These antibodies go into overdrive and attack your own cells, which is what causes long COVID symptoms. “This may be why monoclonal antibodies work because they displace the dysfunctional antibodies that are attached to a patient’s cells,” she explained.
• Reactivation of other viruses. Long COVID is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome, which is often thought to be triggered by reactivation of viruses like the Epstein-Barr virus, noted coauthor Nancy Klimas, MD, director of the Institute for Neuro-Immune Medicine at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale. “It may not explain all of the cases of long COVID, but it could make up a subgroup,” she said. It’s thought that the monoclonal antibodies may perhaps neutralize this reactivation.

Where Research Is Headed

While Regeneron worked well in all three patients, it may be because they developed long COVID from either the initial virus or from early variants like Alpha, Beta, and Delta, said Dr. Pepe. As a result, it’s unclear whether this treatment would work for patients who developed long COVID from newer strains like Omicron.

“What concerns me is I believe there may be many people walking around with mild long COVID from these strains who don’t realize it,” he said. “They may assume that if they have difficulty walking upstairs, or forget why they went into another room, that it’s age related.”

The next step, the researchers said, is to create a registry of volunteer patients with severe long COVID. Dr. Klimas plans to enroll 20 volunteers who were infected before September 2022 to see how they respond to another monoclonal antibody initially used to treat COVID-19, bebtelovimab. (Like Regeneron, bebtelovimab is no longer approved for use against COVID-19 by the US Food and Drug Administration because it is no longer effective against variants of the virus circulating today.)

As for patients who developed long COVID after September 2022, research is ongoing to see if they respond to other monoclonal antibodies that are in development. One such study is currently enrolling participants at the University of California San Francisco. The center is recruiting 30 patients with long COVID to try a monoclonal antibody developed by Aerium Therapeutics.

“They created an investigational monoclonal antibody to treat acute COVID, but it proved less effective against variants that emerged in late 2022,” said lead investigator Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine in the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine at the University of California San Francisco. The hope is it may still work to fight long COVID among patients infected with those variants.

In the meantime, the three patients with long COVID who responded to Regeneron have resumed life as they knew it pre-COVID. Although two subsequently became infected with COVID again, they recovered quickly and did not see symptoms return, something which, for them, seems nothing short of miraculous.

“I had prepared myself to be disabled for life,” said one of the patients, a 46-year-old Floridian woman who developed long COVID after an infection in January 2021. “I had crippling fatigue and dizziness so intense I felt like I was walking on a trampoline. My brain fog was so pronounced I had to write everything down constantly. Otherwise, I’d forget.”

When she became infected with COVID again in September 2021, “I thought I was going to die because I had no idea how I could possibly get worse,” she recalled. Her doctors recommended Regeneron infusion treatment. Forty-eight hours later, her symptoms improved significantly.

“I was able to go out to a cocktail party and dinner for the first time in months,” she said. “I would not have been able to do either of those things a week before.”

It’s also profoundly affected her husband, who had had to take over running the household and raising their five children, aged 11-22 years, for months.

“I can’t tell you how many school events and sports games I missed because I physically didn’t have the strength to get to them,” she noted. “To this day, my husband gets upset whenever we talk about that time. Long COVID literally took over all of our lives. It was devastating to me, but it’s just as devastating for loved ones, too. My family is just grateful to have me back.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr. Brian J. Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.

Welcome, Dr. Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.

Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.

History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: I want to start off by having you describe the history associated with the moratorium on new physician-owned hospitals in 2010 that’s related ultimately to the Affordable Care Act, but also, the current and renewed media interest in physician-owned hospitals that’s linked to recent congressional hearings last month.

Dr. Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.

The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.

Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.

The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.

The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.

Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.

Dr. Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?

Dr. Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership. I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership

Dr. Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?

Dr. Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.

Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.

They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.

We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.

Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.

For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.

Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.

Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: Certainly, your colleague Wang from Johns Hopkins has done important research in this sector. The paper, “Reconsidering the Ban on Physician-Owned Hospitals to Combat Consolidation,” by you and several colleagues, mentions and highlights the issues that you just described. I understand that it’s going to be published in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.

Dr. Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.

When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.

What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.

I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.

Dr. Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That›s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.

Dr. Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.

Dr. Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.

Dr. Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.

Dr. Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.

I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.

Dr. Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.

Dr. Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It›s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I›ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage — these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That›s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.

Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals

Dr. Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.

There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.

In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.

Dr. Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.

For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.

Dr. Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.

Dr. Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.

Dr. Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.

Dr. Miller: I don’t think we do know that.

Dr. Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.

Dr. Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.

The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.

In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.

Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.

Dr. Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.

Dr. Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.

Dr. Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.

I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.

When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.

Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”

Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.

Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.

Dr. Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There›s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.

Dr. Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.

If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.

Dr. Glatter: Well, I think the shift is certainly something that the AMA would like and physicians collectively would agree with. Having a better lifestyle and being able to have control are factors in burnout.

Dr. Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?

My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.

I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.

All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.

We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.

I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.

The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.

Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.

We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.

Dr. Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.

Dr. Miller: Yes, I’m very aware of those data. I’d say that the CBO also is off by 50% on the estimation of the implementation of the Part D program. They overestimated the Affordable Care Act market enrollment by over 10 million people — again, around 50%. They also estimated that the CMS Innovation Center initially would be a savings. Now they’ve re-estimated it as a 10-year expenditure and it has actually cost the taxpayers money.

The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.

Dr. Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.

Dr. Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.

Dr. Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.

Dr. Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.

Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus

Dr. Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?

Dr. Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.

The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.

Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.

Dr. Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.

Dr. Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.

I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.

Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.

Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.

Dr. Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.

Dr. Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.



Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 to 2017, Dr. Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Miller disclosed ties with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

The World Health Organization called the COVID-19 variant JN.1 a standalone “variant of interest” and said JN.1 will drive an increase in cases of the virus, the global health agency has announced.

JN.1 was previously grouped with its relative, BA.2.86, but has increased so much in the past 4 weeks that the WHO moved it to standalone status, according to a summary published by the agency. The prevalence of JN.1 worldwide jumped from 3% for the week ending November 5 to 27% for the week ending December 3. During that same period, JN.1 rose from 1% to 66% of cases in the Western Pacific, which stretches across 37 countries, from China and Mongolia to Australia and New Zealand.

In the United States, JN.1 has been increasing rapidly. The variant accounted for an estimated 21% of cases for the 2-week period ending December 9, up from 8% during the 2 weeks prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID, and like other viruses, it evolves over time, sometimes changing how the virus affects people or how well existing treatments and vaccines work against it.

The WHO and CDC have said the current COVID vaccine appears to protect people against severe symptoms due to JN.1, and the WHO called the rising variant’s public health risk “low.”

“As we observe the rise of the JN.1 variant, it’s important to note that while it may be spreading more widely, there is currently no significant evidence suggesting it is more severe or that it poses a substantial public health risk,” John Brownstein, PhD, chief innovation officer at Boston Children’s Hospital, told ABC News.

In its recent risk analysis, the WHO did acknowledge that it’s not certain whether JN.1 has a higher risk of evading immunity or causing more severe symptoms than other strains. The WHO advised countries to further study how much JN.1 can evade existing antibodies and whether the variant results in more severe disease.

The latest CDC data show that 11% of COVID tests reported to the agency are positive, and 23,432 people were hospitalized with severe symptoms within a 7-day period. The CDC urgently asked people to get vaccinated against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19 ahead of the holidays as cases rise nationwide.

“Getting vaccinated now can help prevent hospitalizations and save lives,” the agency advised.


A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

A power outage, like the 1977 blackout in New York City, can lead to an increase in violent crime. However, complete darkness can also have an upside, as it can encourage intimacy and subsequently boost birth rates. The Christmas season, sometimes called the festival of love, appears to stimulate human interactions. Yet this, also, has its downsides, as recently reported by Dr. Nikolaos Pyrgidis and other urologists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. The less cheerful aspect of the holiday season is penile fractures.

The team found that the Christmas period, in particular, is that bit more risky for this injury after they evaluated data from about 3400 men (average age 42) treated for penile fractures between 2005 and 2021. The data was provided by Germany’s Federal Bureau of Statistics.

Out of the 3400 penile fractures that were reported during this period, 40 (1.2%) occurred over 51 Christmas days (from 24th to 26th December each year). The daily incidence rate of penile fractures during the Christmas period was 0.78, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.43. The authors note that, if every day were like Christmas, there would have been a 43% increase in penile fractures in Germany since 2005. Interestingly, only 28 (0.82%) penile fractures were reported during the New Year (from 31 December to 2 January in the period between 2005 and 2021), with an IRR of 0.98.

More generally, most patients with penile fractures were admitted to the hospital over the weekend (n=1322; IRR 1.58). Notably, Sunday saw the most admissions due to this injury, followed by Saturday. This suggests that men engaging in sexual activities on Saturday night bear the highest risk of penile fractures, followed by those active on Friday nights.

Penile fractures also increased in the summer months (n=929; IRR 1.11). But the COVID-19 pandemic (n=385; IRR 1.06) and the lockdowns (n=93; IRR 1.95%) did not impact the frequency of this injury.

Rare, Painful, and an Emergency

Penile fractures are a rare urological emergency. The tunica albuginea of one or both corpora cavernosa must tear to be considered problematic, as another team of authors reported in a recent publication. Involvement of the urethra and corpus spongiosum is also possible.

Injuries often occur during an erection because it makes the tunica albuginea stiffer and thinner than when the penis is flaccid. Patients report hearing a snap when the penis is forced into an angle during sexual activity. This was reportedly the case with German singer-song writer Dieter Bohlen, whose ex-girlfriend Nadja Abd El Farrag is said to have written in her book “Ungelogen”, or “Honestly”, that there was a sudden snap during an intimate moment one December night (Christmas?), after which she called the fire brigade in her distress.

Multiple Causes Possible

Other factors contributing to penile fractures include rolling over in bed onto an erect penis, forced bending to achieve detumescence, and blunt external traumas like kicks.

Some penile fractures can be caused by patients “kneading and ripping” their erect penis to quickly reduce swelling. In an Iranian study, 269 out of 352 patients (76%) who underwent this process, known as “ taqaandan” in Iran, suffered a penile fracture.

Penile fractures can also occur in children, as evidenced by the case history of a 7-year-old boy described a few years ago in the journal Urology where the cause was a fall onto the penis.

Immediate Action Required

The treatment of choice for a fresh penile fracture is surgical repair of the tunica albuginea defect and, if necessary, the urethra. Timely surgical intervention yields significantly better long-term outcomes than conservative therapy regarding late complications such as erectile dysfunction and penile curvature. It also reduces the rate of early complications, such as severe corporal infections. Conservative therapy should be reserved for patients who explicitly refuse surgical intervention after thorough consultation.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany using ChatGPT followed by human editing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A power outage, like the 1977 blackout in New York City, can lead to an increase in violent crime. However, complete darkness can also have an upside, as it can encourage intimacy and subsequently boost birth rates. The Christmas season, sometimes called the festival of love, appears to stimulate human interactions. Yet this, also, has its downsides, as recently reported by Dr. Nikolaos Pyrgidis and other urologists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. The less cheerful aspect of the holiday season is penile fractures.

The team found that the Christmas period, in particular, is that bit more risky for this injury after they evaluated data from about 3400 men (average age 42) treated for penile fractures between 2005 and 2021. The data was provided by Germany’s Federal Bureau of Statistics.

Out of the 3400 penile fractures that were reported during this period, 40 (1.2%) occurred over 51 Christmas days (from 24th to 26th December each year). The daily incidence rate of penile fractures during the Christmas period was 0.78, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.43. The authors note that, if every day were like Christmas, there would have been a 43% increase in penile fractures in Germany since 2005. Interestingly, only 28 (0.82%) penile fractures were reported during the New Year (from 31 December to 2 January in the period between 2005 and 2021), with an IRR of 0.98.

More generally, most patients with penile fractures were admitted to the hospital over the weekend (n=1322; IRR 1.58). Notably, Sunday saw the most admissions due to this injury, followed by Saturday. This suggests that men engaging in sexual activities on Saturday night bear the highest risk of penile fractures, followed by those active on Friday nights.

Penile fractures also increased in the summer months (n=929; IRR 1.11). But the COVID-19 pandemic (n=385; IRR 1.06) and the lockdowns (n=93; IRR 1.95%) did not impact the frequency of this injury.

Rare, Painful, and an Emergency

Penile fractures are a rare urological emergency. The tunica albuginea of one or both corpora cavernosa must tear to be considered problematic, as another team of authors reported in a recent publication. Involvement of the urethra and corpus spongiosum is also possible.

Injuries often occur during an erection because it makes the tunica albuginea stiffer and thinner than when the penis is flaccid. Patients report hearing a snap when the penis is forced into an angle during sexual activity. This was reportedly the case with German singer-song writer Dieter Bohlen, whose ex-girlfriend Nadja Abd El Farrag is said to have written in her book “Ungelogen”, or “Honestly”, that there was a sudden snap during an intimate moment one December night (Christmas?), after which she called the fire brigade in her distress.

Multiple Causes Possible

Other factors contributing to penile fractures include rolling over in bed onto an erect penis, forced bending to achieve detumescence, and blunt external traumas like kicks.

Some penile fractures can be caused by patients “kneading and ripping” their erect penis to quickly reduce swelling. In an Iranian study, 269 out of 352 patients (76%) who underwent this process, known as “ taqaandan” in Iran, suffered a penile fracture.

Penile fractures can also occur in children, as evidenced by the case history of a 7-year-old boy described a few years ago in the journal Urology where the cause was a fall onto the penis.

Immediate Action Required

The treatment of choice for a fresh penile fracture is surgical repair of the tunica albuginea defect and, if necessary, the urethra. Timely surgical intervention yields significantly better long-term outcomes than conservative therapy regarding late complications such as erectile dysfunction and penile curvature. It also reduces the rate of early complications, such as severe corporal infections. Conservative therapy should be reserved for patients who explicitly refuse surgical intervention after thorough consultation.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany using ChatGPT followed by human editing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A power outage, like the 1977 blackout in New York City, can lead to an increase in violent crime. However, complete darkness can also have an upside, as it can encourage intimacy and subsequently boost birth rates. The Christmas season, sometimes called the festival of love, appears to stimulate human interactions. Yet this, also, has its downsides, as recently reported by Dr. Nikolaos Pyrgidis and other urologists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. The less cheerful aspect of the holiday season is penile fractures.

The team found that the Christmas period, in particular, is that bit more risky for this injury after they evaluated data from about 3400 men (average age 42) treated for penile fractures between 2005 and 2021. The data was provided by Germany’s Federal Bureau of Statistics.

Out of the 3400 penile fractures that were reported during this period, 40 (1.2%) occurred over 51 Christmas days (from 24th to 26th December each year). The daily incidence rate of penile fractures during the Christmas period was 0.78, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.43. The authors note that, if every day were like Christmas, there would have been a 43% increase in penile fractures in Germany since 2005. Interestingly, only 28 (0.82%) penile fractures were reported during the New Year (from 31 December to 2 January in the period between 2005 and 2021), with an IRR of 0.98.

More generally, most patients with penile fractures were admitted to the hospital over the weekend (n=1322; IRR 1.58). Notably, Sunday saw the most admissions due to this injury, followed by Saturday. This suggests that men engaging in sexual activities on Saturday night bear the highest risk of penile fractures, followed by those active on Friday nights.

Penile fractures also increased in the summer months (n=929; IRR 1.11). But the COVID-19 pandemic (n=385; IRR 1.06) and the lockdowns (n=93; IRR 1.95%) did not impact the frequency of this injury.

Rare, Painful, and an Emergency

Penile fractures are a rare urological emergency. The tunica albuginea of one or both corpora cavernosa must tear to be considered problematic, as another team of authors reported in a recent publication. Involvement of the urethra and corpus spongiosum is also possible.

Injuries often occur during an erection because it makes the tunica albuginea stiffer and thinner than when the penis is flaccid. Patients report hearing a snap when the penis is forced into an angle during sexual activity. This was reportedly the case with German singer-song writer Dieter Bohlen, whose ex-girlfriend Nadja Abd El Farrag is said to have written in her book “Ungelogen”, or “Honestly”, that there was a sudden snap during an intimate moment one December night (Christmas?), after which she called the fire brigade in her distress.

Multiple Causes Possible

Other factors contributing to penile fractures include rolling over in bed onto an erect penis, forced bending to achieve detumescence, and blunt external traumas like kicks.

Some penile fractures can be caused by patients “kneading and ripping” their erect penis to quickly reduce swelling. In an Iranian study, 269 out of 352 patients (76%) who underwent this process, known as “ taqaandan” in Iran, suffered a penile fracture.

Penile fractures can also occur in children, as evidenced by the case history of a 7-year-old boy described a few years ago in the journal Urology where the cause was a fall onto the penis.

Immediate Action Required

The treatment of choice for a fresh penile fracture is surgical repair of the tunica albuginea defect and, if necessary, the urethra. Timely surgical intervention yields significantly better long-term outcomes than conservative therapy regarding late complications such as erectile dysfunction and penile curvature. It also reduces the rate of early complications, such as severe corporal infections. Conservative therapy should be reserved for patients who explicitly refuse surgical intervention after thorough consultation.

This article was translated from Univadis Germany using ChatGPT followed by human editing.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of the nation’s largest private insurer, UnitedHealthcare (UHC), is now affiliated with or employs approximately 10% of the US physician workforce, raising anti-trust and noncompete concerns as more payers and private equity firms pursue medical practice acquisitions.

The company added 20,000 physicians in the last year alone, including a previously physician-owned multispecialty group practice of 400 doctors in New York. They join the growing web of doctors — about 90,000 of the 950,000 active US physicians — working for the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary, Optum Health, providing primary, specialty, urgent, and surgical care. Amar Desai, MD, chief executive officer of Optum Health, shared the updated workforce numbers during the health care conglomerate’s annual investor conference.

Health care mergers and consolidations have become more common as physician groups struggle to stay afloat amid dwindling payer reimbursements. Although private equity and health systems often acquire practices, payers like UHC are increasingly doing so as part of their model to advance value-based care. 

Yashaswini Singh, PhD, health care economist and assistant professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University, says such moves mirror the broader trend in corporate consolidation of physician practices. She said in an interview that the integrated models could possibly enhance care coordination and improve outcomes, but the impact of payer-led consolidation has not been extensively studied. 

Meanwhile, evidence considering private equity ownership is just emerging. In a 2022 study published in JAMA Health Forum, with Dr. Singh as lead author, findings showed that private equity involvement increased healthcare spending through higher prices and utilization. 

Consolidation can also raise anti-trust concerns. “If payers incentivize referral patterns of their employed physicians to favor other physicians employed by the payer, it can reduce competition by restricting consumer choice,” said Dr. Singh. 

A potential merger between Cigna and Humana that could happen by the end of the year will likely face intense scrutiny as it would create a company that rivals the size of UnitedHealth Group or CVS Health. If it goes through, the duo could streamline its insurance offerings and leverage each other’s care delivery platforms, clinics, and provider workforce. 

The Biden Administration has sought to strengthen anti-trust statutes to prevent industry monopolies and consumer harm, and the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have proposed new merger guidelines that have yet to be finalized. 

According to Dr. Singh, some of Optum’s medical practice purchases may bypass anti-trust statutes since most prospective mergers and acquisitions are reviewed only if they exceed a specific value ($101 million for 2023). Limited transparency in ownership structures further complicates matters. Plus, Dr. Singh said instances where physicians are hired instead of acquired through mergers would not be subject to current anti-trust laws. 

The ‘corporatization’ of health care is not good for patients or physicians, said Robert McNamara, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine Physician Group and cofounder of Take Medicine Back, a physician group advocating to remove corporate interests from health care. 

“If you ask a physician what causes them the most moral conflict, they’ll tell you it’s the insurance companies denying something they want to do for their patients,” he said. “To have the doctors now working for the insurance industry conflicts with a physician’s duty to put the patient first.” 

Dr. McNamara, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University’s Katz School of Medicine, said in an interview that more than half the states in the United States have laws or court rulings that support protecting physician autonomy from corporate interests. Still, he hopes a federal prohibition on private equity’s involvement in healthcare can soon gain traction. In November, Take Medicine Back raised a resolution at the American Medical Association’s interim House of Delegates meeting, which he said was subsequently referred to a committee. 

Emergency medicine was among the first specialties to succumb to private equity firms, but Dr. McNamara said that all types of health care providers and entities — from cardiology and urology to addiction treatment centers and nursing homes — are being swallowed up by larger organizations, including payers. 

UHC was named in a class action suit recently for allegedly shirking doctors’ orders and relying on a flawed algorithm to determine the length of skilled nursing facility stays for Medicare Advantage policyholders. 

At the investor meeting, Dr. Desai reiterated Optum’s desire to continue expanding care delivery options, especially in its pharmacy and behavioral health business lines, and focus on adopting value-based care. He credited the rapid growth to developing strong relationships with providers and standardizing technology and clinical systems.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A digital stethoscope that uses artificial intelligence (AI) is better at detecting heart murmurs associated with clinically significant valvular heart disease (VHD) than is a primary care physician (PCP) using a traditional stethoscope, a new study shows.

The results suggest collecting relevant sounds through a stethoscope (auscultation) using AI-powered technology is an important primary care tool to detect VHD, study author Moshe A. Rancier, MD, medical director, Massachusetts General Brigham Community Physicians, Lawrence, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Incorporating this AI-assisted device into the primary care exam will help identify patients at risk for VHD earlier and eventually decrease costs in our healthcare system,” he said, because timely detection could avoid emergency room visits and surgeries.

The findings were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

VHD Common

Clinically significant VHD, indicating structural damage to heart valves, affects 1 in 10 adults older than 65 years. Patients may be asymptomatic or present to their PCP with an unspecific symptom like fatigue or malaise.

If VHD is undiagnosed and left untreated, patients could develop more severe symptoms, even be at risk for death, and their quality of life is significantly affected, said Dr. Rancier.

Cardiac auscultation, the current point-of-care clinical standard, has relatively low sensitivity for detecting VHD, leaving most patients undiagnosed.

The deep learning–based AI tool uses sound data to detect cardiac murmurs associated with clinically significant VHD. The device used in the study (Eko; Eko Health) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and is on the market.

The tool identifies background sounds that might affect the evaluation. “If there’s any noise or breath sounds, it tells me this is not a good heart sound, and asks me to record again,” said Dr. Rancier.

A doctor using the AI-assisted stethoscope carries out the auscultation exam with the sound data captured by a smartphone or tablet and sent to the AI server. “I get an answer in a second as to if there’s a murmur or not,” said Dr. Rancier.

Not only that, but the tool can determine if it’s a systolic or diastolic murmur, he added.
 

Real-World Population

The study enrolled a “real-world” population of 368 patients, median age 70 years, 61% female, 70% White, and 18% Hispanic without a prior VHD diagnosis or history of murmur, from three primary care clinics in Queens, New York, and Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

About 79% of the cohort had hypertension, 68% had dyslipidemia, and 38% had diabetes, “which aligns with the population in the US,” said Dr. Rancier.

Each study participant had a regular exam carried out by Dr. Rancier using a traditional stethoscope to detect murmurs and an exam by a technician with a digital stethoscope that collected phonocardiogram (PCG) data for analysis by AI.

In addition, each patient received an echocardiogram 1-2 weeks later to confirm whether clinically significant VHD was present. An expert panel of cardiologists also reviewed the patient’s PCG recordings to confirm the presence of audible murmurs.

Dr. Rancier and the expert panel were blinded to AI and echocardiogram results.

Researchers calculated performance metrics for both PCP auscultation and the AI in detecting audible VHD.

The study showed that AI improved sensitivity to detect audible VHD by over twofold compared with PCP auscultation (94.1% vs 41.2%), with limited impact on specificity (84.5% vs 95.5%).

Dr. Rancier stressed the importance of sensitivity because clinicians tend to under-detect murmurs. “You don’t want to miss those patients because the consequences of undiagnosed VHD are dire.”

The AI tool identified 22 patients with moderate or greater VHD who were previously undiagnosed, whereas PCPs identified eight previously undiagnosed patients with VHD.

Dr. Rancier sees this tool being used beyond primary care, perhaps by emergency room personnel.

The authors plan to follow study participants and assess outcomes at for 6-12 months. They also aim to include more patients to increase the study’s power.
 

Expanding the Technology

They are also interested to see whether the technology can determine which valve is affected; for example, whether the issue is aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation.

A limitation of the study was its small sample size.

Commenting on the findings, Dan Roden, MD, professor of medicine, pharmacology, and biomedical informatics, senior vice president for personalized medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, noted that it demonstrated the AI-based stethoscope “did extraordinarily well” in predicting VHD. 

“I see this as an emerging technology — using an AI-enabled stethoscope and perhaps combining it with other imaging modalities, like an AI-enabled echocardiogram built into your stethoscope,” said Dr. Roden.

“Use of these new tools to detect the presence of valvular disease, as well as the extent of valvular disease and the extent of other kinds of heart disease, will likely help to transform CVD care.” 

The study was funded by Eko Health Inc. Dr. Rancier and Dr. Roden have no relevant conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.