The recent surge in telemedicine services fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic has improved access to psychiatry care and may have set the stage for even more dramatic forays into virtual care in the future. However, not all patients want video visits, and it is not clear that the way telepsychiatry is practiced right now will be the best model for clinical practice once the crisis abates, speakers said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

The COVID-19 pandemic has effectively “democratized” telepsychiatry, a mode of health care delivery that previously was thought of as “overly complex” and limited to a few specialists, said Avrim Fishkind, MD, CEO/consultant in emergency psychiatry and psychiatric emergency services design at Empathic Soul Health in Houston.

“In a blink of an eye, every psychiatrist and every mental health professional now can see themselves – and many have been forced into – becoming telepsychiatrists,” Dr. Fishkind said in a presentation at the meeting.

“I think this is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to our profession,” he continued. “Access to you is fantastic ... and your no-show rates decrease dramatically when people have flexibility to talk to you when they want to schedule and where they want to schedule.”

On the other hand, telepsychiatry should not be viewed as a panacea, cautioned Patrice A. Harris, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and current president of the American Medical Association. The AMA has advocated for the more flexible federal regulations and payment policies that have helped boost telemedicine adoption during the crisis.

“Not every regulation that was relaxed, and not everything we are doing now in the midst of this pandemic, should be continued,” Dr. Harris said in a question-and-answer session earlier in the conference.

“I don’t want us all to say, ‘Wow, we had this experience, and it worked,’ and then continue to do it in the exact same way,” she added. “I know that we, the APA, and AMA, will be there to have a thoughtful, science-based, data-driven conversation about the next move regarding telemedicine and telehealth after we get through this pandemic.”

Telepsychiatry has nevertheless proven very versatile and applicable to a broad swath of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Fishkind. “I start from the position that I can see every patient this way, and I have to find a reason why I can’t,” said Dr. Fishkind, who also is lead telepsychiatrist at the Harris Center in Houston and a past president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry.

Telemedicine services can be as good as office visits, if not better, he told attendees at the virtual meeting. For example, a virtual visit can obviate the need for an in-person evaluation of a child with autism for whom an in-person visit would be challenging for the patient and parent alike.

However, Dr. Fishkind acknowledged that telepsychiatry is not for everyone: “I don’t want to say it’s heaven on earth. There are some patients who do refuse to be seen this way.”

What happens next in telepsychiatry is anyone’s guess, though Dr. Fishkind said he envisions an online “wheel of access” model of psychiatric services delivery.

In this portal-style model, the psychiatric patient might log in, answer a few automated questions, and then, based on their responses, they would be routed to a social worker or nurse navigator at the center of that services wheel.

In turn, the navigator might route the patient to one of the services on the spokes of the wheel, such as a psychiatrist consult, video-based or online cognitive-behavioral therapy, peer forums, group therapy, a pharmacist, or to other clinicians and interventions.

“Patients would have instant access to all of the things that we always want them to have access to – but now, by using virtual technologies, they could actually get them,” said Dr. Fishkind.

Dr. Fishkind reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Fishkind A. APA 2020, Abstract.

The recent surge in telemedicine services fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic has improved access to psychiatry care and may have set the stage for even more dramatic forays into virtual care in the future. However, not all patients want video visits, and it is not clear that the way telepsychiatry is practiced right now will be the best model for clinical practice once the crisis abates, speakers said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

The COVID-19 pandemic has effectively “democratized” telepsychiatry, a mode of health care delivery that previously was thought of as “overly complex” and limited to a few specialists, said Avrim Fishkind, MD, CEO/consultant in emergency psychiatry and psychiatric emergency services design at Empathic Soul Health in Houston.

“In a blink of an eye, every psychiatrist and every mental health professional now can see themselves – and many have been forced into – becoming telepsychiatrists,” Dr. Fishkind said in a presentation at the meeting.

“I think this is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to our profession,” he continued. “Access to you is fantastic ... and your no-show rates decrease dramatically when people have flexibility to talk to you when they want to schedule and where they want to schedule.”

On the other hand, telepsychiatry should not be viewed as a panacea, cautioned Patrice A. Harris, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and current president of the American Medical Association. The AMA has advocated for the more flexible federal regulations and payment policies that have helped boost telemedicine adoption during the crisis.

“Not every regulation that was relaxed, and not everything we are doing now in the midst of this pandemic, should be continued,” Dr. Harris said in a question-and-answer session earlier in the conference.

“I don’t want us all to say, ‘Wow, we had this experience, and it worked,’ and then continue to do it in the exact same way,” she added. “I know that we, the APA, and AMA, will be there to have a thoughtful, science-based, data-driven conversation about the next move regarding telemedicine and telehealth after we get through this pandemic.”

Telepsychiatry has nevertheless proven very versatile and applicable to a broad swath of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Fishkind. “I start from the position that I can see every patient this way, and I have to find a reason why I can’t,” said Dr. Fishkind, who also is lead telepsychiatrist at the Harris Center in Houston and a past president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry.

Telemedicine services can be as good as office visits, if not better, he told attendees at the virtual meeting. For example, a virtual visit can obviate the need for an in-person evaluation of a child with autism for whom an in-person visit would be challenging for the patient and parent alike.

However, Dr. Fishkind acknowledged that telepsychiatry is not for everyone: “I don’t want to say it’s heaven on earth. There are some patients who do refuse to be seen this way.”

What happens next in telepsychiatry is anyone’s guess, though Dr. Fishkind said he envisions an online “wheel of access” model of psychiatric services delivery.

In this portal-style model, the psychiatric patient might log in, answer a few automated questions, and then, based on their responses, they would be routed to a social worker or nurse navigator at the center of that services wheel.

In turn, the navigator might route the patient to one of the services on the spokes of the wheel, such as a psychiatrist consult, video-based or online cognitive-behavioral therapy, peer forums, group therapy, a pharmacist, or to other clinicians and interventions.

“Patients would have instant access to all of the things that we always want them to have access to – but now, by using virtual technologies, they could actually get them,” said Dr. Fishkind.

Dr. Fishkind reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Fishkind A. APA 2020, Abstract.

The recent surge in telemedicine services fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic has improved access to psychiatry care and may have set the stage for even more dramatic forays into virtual care in the future. However, not all patients want video visits, and it is not clear that the way telepsychiatry is practiced right now will be the best model for clinical practice once the crisis abates, speakers said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.

The COVID-19 pandemic has effectively “democratized” telepsychiatry, a mode of health care delivery that previously was thought of as “overly complex” and limited to a few specialists, said Avrim Fishkind, MD, CEO/consultant in emergency psychiatry and psychiatric emergency services design at Empathic Soul Health in Houston.

“In a blink of an eye, every psychiatrist and every mental health professional now can see themselves – and many have been forced into – becoming telepsychiatrists,” Dr. Fishkind said in a presentation at the meeting.

“I think this is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to our profession,” he continued. “Access to you is fantastic ... and your no-show rates decrease dramatically when people have flexibility to talk to you when they want to schedule and where they want to schedule.”

On the other hand, telepsychiatry should not be viewed as a panacea, cautioned Patrice A. Harris, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and current president of the American Medical Association. The AMA has advocated for the more flexible federal regulations and payment policies that have helped boost telemedicine adoption during the crisis.

“Not every regulation that was relaxed, and not everything we are doing now in the midst of this pandemic, should be continued,” Dr. Harris said in a question-and-answer session earlier in the conference.

“I don’t want us all to say, ‘Wow, we had this experience, and it worked,’ and then continue to do it in the exact same way,” she added. “I know that we, the APA, and AMA, will be there to have a thoughtful, science-based, data-driven conversation about the next move regarding telemedicine and telehealth after we get through this pandemic.”

Telepsychiatry has nevertheless proven very versatile and applicable to a broad swath of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Dr. Fishkind. “I start from the position that I can see every patient this way, and I have to find a reason why I can’t,” said Dr. Fishkind, who also is lead telepsychiatrist at the Harris Center in Houston and a past president of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry.

Telemedicine services can be as good as office visits, if not better, he told attendees at the virtual meeting. For example, a virtual visit can obviate the need for an in-person evaluation of a child with autism for whom an in-person visit would be challenging for the patient and parent alike.

However, Dr. Fishkind acknowledged that telepsychiatry is not for everyone: “I don’t want to say it’s heaven on earth. There are some patients who do refuse to be seen this way.”

What happens next in telepsychiatry is anyone’s guess, though Dr. Fishkind said he envisions an online “wheel of access” model of psychiatric services delivery.

In this portal-style model, the psychiatric patient might log in, answer a few automated questions, and then, based on their responses, they would be routed to a social worker or nurse navigator at the center of that services wheel.

In turn, the navigator might route the patient to one of the services on the spokes of the wheel, such as a psychiatrist consult, video-based or online cognitive-behavioral therapy, peer forums, group therapy, a pharmacist, or to other clinicians and interventions.

“Patients would have instant access to all of the things that we always want them to have access to – but now, by using virtual technologies, they could actually get them,” said Dr. Fishkind.

Dr. Fishkind reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Fishkind A. APA 2020, Abstract.

Physicians in New York, which still leads the nation in reported COVID-19 cases, are reporting significantly more acute, large vessel strokes in young adults infected with COVID-19.

In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.

The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.

“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.

The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.

Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.

Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.

“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.

As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.

The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.

One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”

Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians in New York, which still leads the nation in reported COVID-19 cases, are reporting significantly more acute, large vessel strokes in young adults infected with COVID-19.

In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.

The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.

“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.

The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.

Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.

Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.

“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.

As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.

The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.

One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”

Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians in New York, which still leads the nation in reported COVID-19 cases, are reporting significantly more acute, large vessel strokes in young adults infected with COVID-19.

In a rapid communication to be published online April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators led by Thomas Oxley, MD, PhD, of the department of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Health System, reported five cases of large vessel stroke over a 2-week period in COVID-19 patients under age 50 years. This represents a sevenfold increase in what would normally be expected.

The five cases had either no, or mild, COVID-19 symptoms.

“It’s been surprising to learn that the virus appears to cause disease through a process of blood clotting,” Dr. Oxley said in an interview.

The message for neurologists and other physicians is “we’re learning that this can disproportionally affect large vessels more than small vessels in terms of presentation of stroke,” he said.

Inflammation in the blood vessel walls may be driving thrombosis formation, Dr. Oxley added. This report joins other research pointing to this emerging phenomenon.

Recently, investigators in the Netherlands found a “remarkably high” 31% rate of thrombotic complications among 184 critical care patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues also suggested that, since the onset of the pandemic, fewer patients may be calling emergency services when they experience signs of a stroke. The physicians noted that two of the five cases in the report delayed calling an ambulance.

“I understand why people do not want to leave the household. I think people are more willing to ignore other [non–COVID-19] symptoms in this environment,” he said.

As previously reported, physicians in hospitals across the United States and elsewhere have reported a significant drop in stroke patients since the COVID-19 pandemic took hold, which suggests that patients may indeed be foregoing emergency care.

The observations from Dr. Oxley and colleagues call for greater awareness of the association between COVID-19 and large vessel strokes in this age group, they add.

One patient in the case series died, one remains hospitalized, two are undergoing rehabilitation, and one was discharged home as of April 24.

Dr. Oxley and colleagues dedicated their report to “our inspiring colleague Gary Sclar, MD, a stroke physician who succumbed to COVID-19 while caring for his patients.”

Dr. Oxley has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

Tackling the COVID-19 crisis will require psychiatrists to muster the courage to lead, establish trust, and ultimately provide psychiatric care with competence, honesty, and compassion, said Patrice A. Harris, MD, an Atlanta-based psychiatrist who is president of the American Medical Association.

Leaders in psychiatry are uniquely positioned to combat a wave of disease misinformation, address inequities in care, and meet the logistical challenges of safely meeting patient needs as the outbreak continues, Dr. Harris said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting, which was held as a virtual live event.

“I believe you, we, are more than a match for this moment – a moment that requires our leadership and requires us to hold other leaders accountable as we fight this pandemic,” she said in remarks to online attendees.
 

Using trust to fight myths

Misinformation about COVID-19 has been “spreading rapidly, even intentionally, due to fear or political agendas,” said Dr. Harris, who became the 174th president of the AMA in June 2019.

“I spent the first 2 weeks in this pandemic dispelling the myth that African Americans could not become infected with COVID-19,” she said. Others believe the coronavirus crisis is a new way to force vaccinations on people who don’t want them, added Dr. Harris.

Myths, rumors, and conspiracy theories lead to “more illness and death,” she said, at a time when most Americans say they’ve lost trust in the federal government and even in other American citizens.

“Fortunately, people still trust us – their doctors,” she added. “We fight for science, we call out quackery and snake oil when we see it, [and] we are willing to counter the propaganda of the antiscience voice.”

Physicians are ranked among the most trusted professions because they are committed to seeing, acknowledging, and sharing patients’ human experience, “and of course, I believe we do that as psychiatrists more than most,” Dr. Harris said.
 

Fighting COVID-19 at the AMA level

During the pandemic, the AMA has advocated for adequate testing and supplies, adequate insurance coverage, and changes to current procedural technology (CPT) codes to streamline novel coronavirus testing. The AMA has also developed a free COVID-19 resource center on the JAMA Network website, Dr. Harris said, as well as guidance on protecting medical students responding to the pandemic.

The safety of health care clinicians remains a central issue for the AMA at a time when masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) remain in short supply.

In a recent letter to Vice President Mike Pence, who is leading the White House’s coronavirus task force, AMA Executive Vice President and CEO James L. Madara, MD, urged the Trump administration to undertake a Manhattan Project–like effort to expand capacity for needed supplies.

“We will continue to call on the White House, and APA has as well, to make sure these needs are met,” Dr. Harris said.
 

COVID-19 and inequities in care

Because the pandemic has had dramatic effects on African American communities across the United States, AMA Chief Health Equity Officer Aletha Maybank, MD, has made recent media appearances to highlight care inequities and what can be done about them.

Meanwhile, the AMA and other physician associations have urged the Trump Administration to collect, analyze, and make available COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity: “We can’t fix a problem until we identify a problem,” Dr. Harris said in her address to the APA.
 

Relying on science

In a virtual address hosted by the National Press Club earlier in April, Dr. Harris made an appeal for “relying on the science and evidence” to inform COVID-19–related decisions.

Elected officials need to “affirm science, evidence, and fact in their words and actions,” while media need to be vigilant in citing credible sources and challenging those who “chose to trade in misinformation,” she said in that address.

Speaking at the APA virtual meeting, Dr. Harris spoke of an “assault on science for several years” that inspired the National Press Club address. “We wanted to remind the public of its responsibility to focus on science and the evidence, for us to turn the tide against COVID-19,” she explained.
 

Physician care and self-care

While the AMA urges social distancing, Dr. Harris used the term “physical distancing” in her APA address. Physical distancing emphasizes the need for stay-at-home and shelter-in-place restrictions, while recognizing the need for maintaining meaningful social interactions, she explained.

Social media use represents one “opportunity” to bridge that gap when physical proximity is not an option, she added.

Dr. Harris also stressed the need for physicians to “take time out and practice self-care” to ensure that they are recharged and able to provide optimal patient care.

“We need to be there for others, but we have to put our own masks on first,” she said.

Dr. Harris reported no financial relationships with commercial interests.

SOURCE: Harris PA. APA 2020 Virtual Meeting.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a massive decline in outpatient office visits as patients have stayed home – likely deferring needed care – because of COVID-19, new research shows.

The number of visits to ambulatory practices dropped by a whopping 60% in mid-March, and continues to be down by at least 50% since early February, according to new data compiled and analyzed by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company.

Phreesia – which helps medical practices with patient registration, insurance verification, and payments – has data on 50,000 providers in all 50 states; in a typical year, Phreesia tracks 50 million outpatient visits.

The report was published online April 23 by the Commonwealth Fund.

The company captured data on visits from February 1 through April 16. The decline was greatest in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, where, at the steepest end of the decline in late March, visits were down 66%.

They have rebounded slightly since then but are still down 64%. Practices in the mountain states had the smallest decline, but visits were down by 45% as of April 16.

Many practices have attempted to reach out to patients through telemedicine. As of April 16, about 30% of all visits tracked by Phreesia were provided via telemedicine – by phone or through video. That’s a monumental increase from mid-February, when zero visits were conducted virtually.

However, the Harvard researchers found that telemedicine visits barely made up for the huge decline in office visits.
 

Decline by specialty

Not surprisingly, declining visits have been steeper in procedure-oriented specialties.

Overall visits – including telemedicine – to ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists had declined by 79% and 75%, respectively, as of the week of April 5. Dermatology saw a 73% decline. Surgery, pulmonology, urology, orthopedics, cardiology, and gastroenterology all experienced declines ranging from 61% to 66%.

Primary care offices, oncology, endocrinology, and obstetrics/gynecology all fared slightly better, with visits down by half. Behavioral health experienced the lowest rate of decline (30%).

School-aged children were skipping care most often. The study showed a 71% drop in visits in 7- to 17-year-olds, and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans over age 65 also stayed away from their doctors. Only half of those aged 18 to 64 reduced their physician visits.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.

In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?

A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.

A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.

While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.

While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.

The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.

The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.

As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.

In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?

A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.

A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.

While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.

While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.

The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.

The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.

As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

Ever wonder how your hospitalist group’s compensation stacks up? Whether you’re a practicing hospitalist curious about how competitive your compensation package is or a hospital medicine group leader performing an appraisal of your group’s salary structure, chances are you’re looking to fair market benchmarks for hospitalist compensation. In the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report, the Society of Hospital Medicine partners with the Medical Group Management Association to provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity.

In 2018, the median compensation for adult hospitalist respondents was $289,151, an increase of over $10,000 from 2016. When comparing compensation across different regions, there appear to be remarkable differences across the nation. Not surprisingly, hospitalists in the South fare better than their colleagues in the East, with a reported median compensation difference of nearly $33,000. Does that make you want to move to Texas? What about the even more striking difference between adult hospitalists and pediatric hospitalists, whose median compensation was reported to be $205,342 in 2018?

A common pitfall in compensation analysis is comparing wages across regions and specialties without considering productivity. Reviewing compensation per work relative value units (wRVU) and compensation per encounter offer additional insight for a more comprehensive assessment of compensation.

A regional comparison of compensation per wRVU reveals that hospitalists in the West earn more per wRVU than their colleagues in other parts of the country, including the South. Specifically, compensation per wRVU in the West is $86.57; in the South, $59.38; in the East, $65.74; and in the Midwest, $73.08. A similar comparison of compensation per wRVU (see Figure 1) suggests that academic adult, academic pediatric, and nonacademic adult hospitalists are fairly evenly compensated when considering productivity, but nonacademic pediatric hospitalist respondents earned significantly more per wRVU. From this perspective, pediatric hospitalists appear to be similarly compensated, if not better, than their adult hospitalist colleagues.

While differences in compensation per wRVU may be minimal between nonacademic and academic hospitalists, there remains a significant difference in total compensation. Median compensation for nonacademic internal medicine hospitalists was approximately $63,000 more than that reported for academic internal medicine hospitalists. This doesn’t come as a surprise since compensation tends to be lower in academic settings across all specialties. It could be valuable for future compensation and productivity assessments to define and measure academic and other forms of nonbillable hospitalist productivity. Development of national standards for nonbillable productivity units could help create a more comprehensive model for structuring hospitalist compensation.

While it’s important to understand compensation benchmarks in order to remain competitive as an hospital medicine group, money isn’t everything. Group culture, professional development and growth opportunities, and schedules that afford better work-life integration are important factors that contribute to hospitalist “compensation” valuations. Arguably these factors are more valuable than any compensation package, but it’s not easy to quantify their weight. Some indirect forms of compensation include paid time off, paid sick days, and support for professional development through allowances and protected time off for CME. Other indirect compensation includes tuition benefits for hospitalists and their family, retirement benefits programs, and the unicorn of benefits – pension plans. In the 2018 SoHM survey, the median employer contribution to retirement plans was reported to be $19,875, with respondents in the Midwest receiving the highest retirement benefit of $28,340.

The good news is that hospitalist physician compensation has continued to rise, compared with previous years (see Figure 2), despite the relative flat trends in wRVUs and encounters. Among other reasons, this may reflect a shift from compensating hospitalists for volume towards compensation for their value.

The not-so-good news? In contrast to prior SoHM Surveys reporting compensation differences that increased at a rate of 8%-10% every 2 years, the difference in median compensation between 2016 and 2018 was 3.7%. Several factors could play into the slower acceleration rate, including differences in respondent groups between 2016 and 2018. It will be more intriguing to know whether we’re starting to see hospitalist compensation leveling off.

As the 2020 SoHM surveying period just concluded, it remains to be seen how compensation has changed in the past 2 years and whether hospitalist compensation is starting to plateau. Stay tuned for the 2020 SoHM Report available later this year, which will offer invaluable insights into hospitalist compensation trends. You can sign up to be notified when it becomes available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/SoHM.

Dr. Kurian is chief of the academic division of hospital medicine at Northwell Health in New York. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

We are all experiencing collective loss and grief because of COVID-19, but that doesn’t mean that we are experiencing the same loss or grieving the same way.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

Losses can be unique to individuals, such as the death of a loved one or divorce from a spouse. They can also be more universal, such as the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. However, both of these types of losses are generally associated with a distinct event that has a known beginning and endpoint. What makes the losses related to the coronavirus so different is that there is not a known expiration date. This lack of certainty about when the losses caused by the pandemic will end makes it difficult to process and mourn appropriately.

The multitude of potential losses includes, of course, the death of thousands of people. Many of us have personally lost loved ones or know people who have had loss because of COVID-19-related illnesses. There have also been numerous illnesses caused by delayed medical care tied to fears of going to a hospital during the pandemic. Unfortunately, there is an anticipatory loss because of the invariable diseases that will be diagnosed because of the halt of routine and preventive medical care during this current restricted phase of social distancing. There has been a loss of how people can mourn the deceased, having to go without funerals, memorials, and shivas.

There are also losses that are not related to health. These more intangible losses may include the loss of employment and stable income; loss of our children’s completion of their academic year; loss of socialization; loss of travel and visits to friends and family; loss of normal childbirth where a pregnant mother is accompanied by her partner; loss of visiting sick relatives and newborns; loss of dating, weddings, graduations, and milestone birthday celebrations; loss of visits to nursing homes of your loved ones; loss of the needed services and support to help with your young child’s disabilities; and loss of intimacy, connection and touch.

Such losses may seem inconsequential, compared with the death of an acquaintance or loved one. But we do not know the back story behind these other losses. For example, could a family member who is unable to meet the newest addition to the family have a terminal disease and his or her own expiration date? Could the lack of dating exacerbate a new divorcée’s feeling of loneliness and despair?

When we know the details associated with the individual’s loss due to COVID-19, we can understand and better empathize. Continued collective loss without an expiration date will lead to collective grief without an endpoint.
 

Stages of grief

The five distinct stages of grief experienced after a loss were initially developed by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” and again explored in her book “On Grief and Grieving” in 2005. The stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

The grief process is unique to each individual and not necessarily a predictable process, with some moving through the stages at a slower pace while others can get stuck in one or more of the stages. This non-linear pattern of grief is evident in our grief response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some of us had experiences of denial back in early March, when initial thoughts crept up, such as “this can’t be as bad as what the medical officials are proposing” and “how is this any different from the flu?” Denial is used as a protective defense against feeling an abundance of emotions all at once, while allowing us time to adjust to the new situation.

Most of us have also had experiences with anger directed at our leaders for not adequately preparing us and intense rage at health care administrators for lack of proper protective gear for our first-line health care workers.

Bargaining tactics were noticeable with common thoughts such as “if we stay home and risk the demise of our economy, we will have the chance to protect our most vulnerable populations and therefore save lives.” Unfortunately, many of us have also experienced thoughts of despair and depression. Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness set in with many parents, who, overnight, were given dual roles as a parent and teacher. Many parents are attempting to simultaneously juggle a full-time workload.

Some of us already have begun to move to the last stage of grief, which is acceptance. Although most of us will experience all five of the stages of grief, we are not necessarily in the same stage at the same time. This can lead to contentious conversations among colleagues, friends, and family members. We might not necessarily be in the same mourning stage as our spouse, child, mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, cousins, or friend. The differences in how we mourn can result in your spouse remaining in the denial phase of grief and refusing to wear a mask to the grocery store. At the same time, you may have already entered the bargaining phase and are willing to forgo the niceties of grocery shopping to protect and promote the common good.

With loss inevitably comes change

This difference in these stages of loss can affect how we all return to a new sense of routine when we begin to reopen our communities.

Unfortunately, we will not have defined guidelines or cookbook steps and rules to abide by. The one thing we will have is our ability to accept each other’s differences, especially when it comes to grief.

Remember, we all will grieve in our way, and this isn’t a race to the finish line. What we do know is that none of us are coming out of this unscathed. This global loss will forever change us. Our new standard will take time for acclimation, but we will get there. With loss inevitably comes change, and this experience will allow us to redefine who we are and what we choose to prioritize and focus on post pandemic. There will be a post-pandemic period, whether it is 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years from now; we will eventually start to shake hands again, even hug and kiss hello. What we need to make sure of is that we don’t forget this time. Whatever meaning you find, and change for the better, will hopefully transcend to your post-pandemic life.
 

Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to exact a heavy price on cancer patients, cancer care, and clinical trials, an expert panel reported during a presscast.

“Limited data available thus far are sobering: In Italy, about 20% of COVID-related deaths occurred in people with cancer, and, in China, COVID-19 patients who had cancer were about five times more likely than others to die or be placed on a ventilator in an intensive care unit,” said Howard A “Skip” Burris, MD, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and president and CEO of the Sarah Cannon Cancer Institute in Nashville, Tenn.

“We also have little evidence on returning COVID-19 patients with cancer. Physicians have to rely on limited data, anecdotal reports, and their own professional expertise” regarding the extent of increased risk to cancer patients with COVID-19, whether to interrupt or modify treatment, and the effects of cancer on recovery from COVID-19 infection, Dr. Burris said during the ASCO-sponsored online presscast.
 

Care of COVID-free patients

For cancer patients without COVID-19, the picture is equally dim, with the prospect of delayed surgery, chemotherapy, or screening; shortages of medications and equipment needed for critical care; the shift to telemedicine that may increase patient anxiety; and the potential loss of access to innovative therapies through clinical trials, Dr. Burris said.

“We’re concerned that some hospitals have effectively deemed all cancer surgeries to be elective, requiring them to be postponed. For patients with fast-moving or hard-to-treat cancer, this delay may be devastating,” he said.

Dr. Burris also cited concerns about delayed cancer diagnosis. “In a typical month, roughly 150,000 Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But right now, routine screening visits are postponed, and patients with pain or other warning signs may put off a doctor’s visit because of social distancing,” he said.

The pandemic has also exacerbated shortages of sedatives and opioid analgesics required for intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients.
 

Trials halted or slowed

Dr. Burris also briefly discussed results of a new survey, which were posted online ahead of publication in JCO Oncology Practice. The survey showed that, of 14 academic and 18 community-based cancer programs, 59.4% reported halting screening and/or enrollment for at least some clinical trials and suspending research-based clinical visits except for those where cancer treatment was delivered.

“Half of respondents reported ceasing research-only blood and/or tissue collections,” the authors of the article reported.

“Trial interruptions are devastating news for thousands of patients; in many cases, clinical trials are the best or only appropriate option for care,” Dr. Burris said.

The article authors, led by David Waterhouse, MD, of Oncology Hematology Care in Cincinnati, pointed to a silver lining in the pandemic cloud in the form of opportunities to improve clinical trials going forward.

“Nearly all respondents (90.3%) identified telehealth visits for participants as a potential improvement to clinical trial conduct, and more than three-quarters (77.4%) indicated that remote patient review of symptoms held similar potential,” the authors wrote.

Other potential improvements included remote site visits from trial sponsors and/or contract research organizations, more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessments of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.
 

Lessons from the front lines

Another member of the presscast panel, Melissa Dillmon, MD, of the Harbin Clinic Cancer Center in Rome, Georgia, described the experience of community oncologists during the pandemic.

Her community, located in northeastern Georgia, experienced a COVID-19 outbreak in early March linked to services at two large churches. Community public health authorities issued a shelter-in-place order before the state government issued stay-at-home guidelines and shuttered all but essential business, some of which were allowed by state order to reopen as of April 24.

Dr. Dillmon’s center began screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, limited visitors or companions, instituted virtual visits and tumor boards, and set up a cancer treatment triage system that would allow essential surgeries to proceed and most infusions to continue, while delaying the start of chemotherapy when possible.

“We have encouraged patients to continue on treatment, especially if treatment is being given with curative intent, or if the cancer is responding well already to treatment,” she said.

The center, located in a community with a high prevalence of comorbidities and high incidence of lung cancer, has seen a sharp decline in colonoscopies, mammograms, and lung scans as patient shelter in place.

“We have great concerns about patients missing their screening lung scans, as this program has already proven to be finding earlier lung cancers that are curable,” Dr. Dillmon said.
 

A view from Washington state

Another panel member, Gary Lyman, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, described the response by the state of Washington, the initial epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

Following identification of infections in hospitalized patients and at a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington, “our response, which began in early March and progressed through the second and third week in March at the state level, was to restrict large gatherings; progressively, schools were closed; larger businesses closed; and, by March 23, a stay-at-home policy was implemented, and all nonessential businesses were closed,” Dr. Lyman said.

“We believe, based on what has happened since that time, that this has considerably flattened the curve,” he continued.

Lessons from the Washington experience include the need to plan for a long-term disruption or alteration of cancer care, expand COVID-19 testing to all patients coming into hospitals or major clinics, institute aggressive supportive care measures, prepare for subsequent waves of infection, collect and share data, and, for remote or rural areas, identify lifelines to needed resources, Dr. Lyman said.
 

ASCO resources

Also speaking at the presscast, Jonathan Marron, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, outlined ASCO’s guidance on allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, outlined community-wide collaborations, data initiatives, and online resources for both clinicians and patients.

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

My medical career began during a tragedy. I started medical school in August 2001 at New York University, a few dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Several weeks later, the September 11 terrorist attacks devastated the city, and the rest of our country. Though we knew virtually nothing yet about practicing medicine, my entire class put on our scrubs and ran to the Bellevue Hospital emergency department to see if there was anything we could do to help. In the end, there was not much we could do that day, but the experience seared into us the notion that a physician stands tall in a crisis and does whatever it takes to help.

For me, the recent emergency we are facing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought back bone-chilling memories of that time, especially because New York City has been one of the hardest-hit cities in the world. It’s hard for anyone to change routines on a dime, but I’m fortunate to run a solo private practice with a small administrative staff. I was able to pivot my medication management and therapy patients to 100% telepsychiatry overnight, even though I quite dislike the emotional distancing that the physical separation creates. However, I do administer some treatments that require my patients’ physical presence: long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics, and intranasal esketamine. I consider both to be life-saving interventions, so I had to figure out how to continue offering those services while doing my part to keep everyone healthy.

Drive-up LAI antipsychotics

Many of my patients who receive LAIs are on formulations that are injected into the deltoid, so I transitioned to having them drive up to the front door of my office and roll up their sleeve so I could administer the injection without them leaving their car. If it was possible to convert a monthly deltoid injection to an equivalent quarterly deltoid injection, I accelerated that process. It took a little more thought to figure out how to best manage patients who had been getting gluteal injections. Deltoid injections are more convenient, but for certain antipsychotics, the only available LAI formulations that allow intervals longer than 1 month require gluteal administration due to the injection volume and pharmacokinetic considerations. Because of privacy and safety considerations, I didn’t feel gluteal injections would be feasible or appropriate for drive-up administration.

Maintaining patients on their gluteal injections would provide a longer duration between doses, but because patients would have to come inside the office to get them, there would be a higher risk of COVID-19 transmission. Converting them to a once-monthly equivalent with the same molecule and comparable dosage given in the deltoid via drive-up would reduce the risk of viral transmission, but requiring more frequent injections would increase the likelihood they might not show up for all doses during this crisis. I spoke with several other psychiatrists about this dilemma, and several of them favored lengthening the injection cycle as the top priority during this time. However, given the exponential curve of viral transmission in a pandemic, time is of the essence to “flatten the curve.” I decided that prioritizing the reduction of infection risk was paramount, and so I began switching my patients receiving gluteal injections with a longer duration to deltoid injections with a shorter duration. I can only hope I made the right decision for my patients, staff, and family.

Drive-up esketamine

Then came the hardest question—how do I continue to provide intranasal esketamine to my patients? There is an (appropriately) rigid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy protocol in place that requires patients to be monitored in a medically supervised health care setting for 2 hours after receiving esketamine. Having a patient in the office for at least 2 hours would create a tremendous risk for viral transmission, even in the best-case scenario of using personal protective equipment and stringent efforts to sterilize the space. I didn’t consider putting the treatments on hold because esketamine is indicated solely for patients with treatment-resistant depression, and these patients couldn’t be effectively managed with conventional oral antidepressants. I decided I’d have to figure out a way to adapt the drive-up LAI administration process for esketamine treatments as well.

In my practice, esketamine monitoring usually occurs in a treatment room that has a back entrance to a small, private parking lot. I realized that if I had the patients pull around the building and park in the spot right outside the window, we could maintain direct observation from inside the office while they sat in their car! Patients are not permitted to drive after receiving an esketamine treatment, so we take possession of their car keys to prevent them from driving off before the end of the monitoring period. We give them one of our automatic blood pressure cuffs to take the required blood pressure readings, and they relay the results through a video telemedicine connection. We also enlist the patient’s designated driver to provide an additional set of eyes for monitoring. When the observation period ends, the cuff is retrieved and sanitized.

Meeting our patients’ needs

Our duty to our patients is vital during a crisis, and they deserve everything in our power that we can offer them. We can’t be complacent in our routines and let our fears of what might or might not happen paralyze us from moving forward. If we are flexible and creative, we can rise to overcome any challenge to meeting our patients’ needs. Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen some of the patients I was most worried about turn out to be some of the most resilient. When our patients have risen to the occasion, what excuse do we have not to do the same?

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Since early March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic,¹ our lives have been drastically altered. As the number of COVID-19 cases continued to rise, businesses closed, jobs disappeared, store shelves were emptied, sporting events were postponed or cancelled, the economy tanked, and social distancing became a new way of life.

COVID-19 has created uncertainty in our lives, both professionally and personally. This can be difficult to face because we are programmed to desire certainty, to want to know what is happening around us, and to notice threatening people and/or situations.² Uncertainty can lead us to feel stressed or overwhelmed due to a sense of losing control.² Our mental and physical well-being can begin to deteriorate. We can feel more frazzled, angry, helpless, sad, frustrated, or confused,² and we can become more isolated. These thoughts and feelings can make our daily activities more cumbersome.

To maintain our own mental and physical well-being, we must give ourselves permission to change the narrative from “the patient is always first” to “the patient always—but not always first.”³ Doing so will allow us to continue to help our patients.³ Despite the pervasive uncertainty, taking the following actions can help us to maintain our own mental and physical health.^2-5

Minimize news that causes us to feel worse. COVID-19 news dominates the headlines. The near-constant, ever-changing stream of reports can cause us to feel overwhelmed and stressed. We should get information only from trusted sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the WHO, and do so only once or twice a day. We should seek out only facts, and not focus on rumors that could worsen our thoughts and feelings.

Social distancing does not mean social isolation. To reduce the spread of COVID-19, social distancing has become necessary, but we should not completely avoid each other. We can still communicate with others via texting, e-mail, social media, video conferences, and phone calls. Despite not being able to engage in socially accepted physical greetings such as handshakes or hugs, we should not hesitate to verbally greet each other, albeit from a distance. In addition, we can still go outside while maintaining a safe distance from each other.

Keep a routine. Because we are creatures of habit, a routine (even a new one) can help sustain our mental and physical well-being. We should continue to:

• remain active at our usual times
• get adequate sleep and rest
• eat nutritious food
• engage in physical activity
• maintain contact with our family and friends
• continue treatments for any physical and/or mental conditions.

Avoid unhealthy coping strategies, such as binge-watching TV shows, because these can worsen psychological and physical well-being. You are likely to know what to do to “de-stress” yourself, and you should not hesitate to keep yourself psychologically and physically fit. Continue to engage in CDC-recommended hygienic practices such as frequently washing your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, avoiding close contact with people who are sick, and staying at home when you are sick. Seek mental health and/or medical treatment as necessary.

Continue to: Put the uncertainty in perspective

Put the uncertainty in perspective. Hopefully, there will come a time when we will resume our normal lives. Until then, we should acknowledge the uncertainty without immediately reacting to the worries that it creates. It is important to take a step back and think before reacting. This involves challenging ourselves to stay in the present and resist projecting into the future. Use this time for self-care, reflection, and/or catching up on the “to-do list.” We should be kind to ourselves and those around us. As best we can, we should show empathy to others and try to help our friends, families, and colleagues who are having a difficult time managing this crisis.

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.
 

Many questions on the care of patients with regard to COVID-19 have been coming up in clinic lately. We periodically try to answer some of the most common and important ones, including the following:

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Question

How should patients on immunosuppressive therapy be advised during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Answer

In general, those patients who have not tested positive, have not been exposed, and are asymptomatic should continue their medications as prescribed.

The American College of Rheumatology issued a statement on April 14, recommending that stable patients continue their medications. Those with known exposure but without confirmed infection may continue hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, and NSAIDs.

Immunosuppressants, non–IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily, pending a negative test or after two weeks without symptoms. In patients with confirmed positive COVID-19 infection, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, immunosuppressants, non-IL-6 biologics, and JAK inhibitors should be stopped temporarily. Anti-malarial therapies (hydroxycholoroquine and chloroquine) may be continued and IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances.¹

The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the discussion of continuation of biologics be based on a case-by-case basis, citing insufficient evidence to recommend against discontinuation at this time in those patients who have not tested positive. In patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 it is recommended that biologic therapy be suspended until symptoms have resolved.²

Question

Should I continue preventive services during peak COVID-19?

Answer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends delaying all elective ambulatory provider visits. In general, preventative services, such as adult immunizations, lipid screening, and cancer screenings, should be delayed. Additionally, the CDC recommends reaching out to patients who are at high risk for complications from respiratory diseases to ensure medication adherence and provide resources if these patients become ill. Facilities can reduce transmission of COVID-19 by triaging and assessing patients through virtual visits through phone calls, video conferences, text-monitoring systems, and other telemedicine tools. Physicians should try to provide routine and chronic care through virtual visits when possible over in-person visits.³

Question

Should I continue to vaccinate my pediatric population during peak COVID-19?

Answer

Practices that schedule separate well visits and sick visits in different sessions or locations can continue to provide well child visits. A practice could, for example, schedule well visits in the morning and sick visits in the afternoon if a single facility is used. These practices should prioritize newborn care and vaccinations of children, especially for those under the age of 24 months.⁴

Question

Can physicians use telehealth (phone only or audiovisual) to conduct visits with Medicare patients even if they are new patients?

Answer

Effective March 1 through the duration of the pandemic, Medicare will pay physicians for telehealth services at the same rate as an in-office visit. On March 30th, the Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services announced new policies for physicians and hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. These guidelines were updated on April 9.

Audio-only visits are now permitted and the limit on the number of these kinds of visits allowed per month has been waived. Controlled substances can be prescribed via telehealth; however, complying with each state’s individual laws is still required.

Use of any two-way, audiovisual device is permitted. The level of service billed for visits with both audio and visual components is the same as an in-office visit. Telemedicine can be used for both new and existing patients.⁵

A list of services that may be rendered via telehealth are available on the CMS website.⁶


It will be important to regularly check the references given, as information on some of these topics is updated frequently.
 

Dr. Chuong is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency, Dr. Flanagan is a third-year resident, and Dr. Matthews is an intern, all at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.

References

1. ACR issues COVID-19 treatment guidance for rheumatic disease patients.

2. American Academy of Dermatology: Guidance on the use of biologic agents during COVID-19 outbreak.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Actions to take in response to community transmission of COVID-19.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maintaining childhood immunizations during COVID19 pandemic.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. COVID-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) on Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) billing.

6. Centers for Medicare & Medcaid Services. List of telehealth services.