Commentary

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

Since the reversal of the Medicare exclusion in 2014, the rates of gender-affirming surgery have increased markedly in the United States.¹ Gender-affirming mastectomy, otherwise known as “top surgery,” is one of the more commonly performed procedures; with 97% of patients having either undergone or expressed desire for the surgery.² The goals of this procedure are to remove all visible breast tissue and reconstruct the chest wall so it is more masculine in appearance. For transmasculine and nonbinary patients, this procedure is associated with significant improvements in mental health and quality of life.^3,4 While the mastectomy procedure is often performed by plastic surgeons, patients will see an ob.gyn. in the preoperative or postoperative period. Ob.gyns. should have a general understanding of the procedure, but most importantly know how to screen for breast cancer in patients who have undergone a gender-affirming mastectomy.

Providers will likely encounter transmasculine or nonbinary patients during annual screening examinations or for a preoperative exam. If a patient is seeking a preoperative risk assessment prior to undergoing a gender-affirming mastectomy, assessing a patient’s risk status for breast cancer is paramount. While testosterone therapy is no longer a prerequisite for gender-affirming mastectomies, documenting hormone use, age at initiation, and dosage is important.⁵ The overall effects of testosterone on breast tissue are inconsistent. However, studies have demonstrated that patients taking testosterone are not at an increased risk of breast cancer secondary to testosterone use.^5-7 Patients should be asked about a personal of family history of breast cancer, breast surgery, history of prior breast biopsies, parity, age at menarche, smoking status, and breastfeeding history if applicable. Patients with high-risk mutations or a strong family history of breast cancer should be referred to genetic counselors, surgical oncologists, and possibly undergo genetic testing.⁸ Before an examination, providers should counsel patients about the nature of the examination and use gender-neutral language such as “chest” to avoid exacerbating gender dysphoria.

It is important to educate transmasculine patients about their risk for the development of breast cancer after mastectomy. Larger-scale, population-based studies of breast cancer in the transgender population have reported an incidence of 5.9 per 100,000 patients-years and an overall incidence comparable to cisgender men in age-standardized national samples.^5-7 Unfortunately, data on the rates of breast cancer in transmasculine patients after gender-affirming mastectomy are limited, which makes defining postoperative guidelines challenging. Additionally, the amount of residual breast tissue remaining varies based on the surgeon and technique.

Several techniques are described for mastectomy procedures with differences that can affect the amount of residual breast tissue. The most common type of gender-affirming mastectomy is the double incision. With this procedure, the nipple-areolar complex is reduced in size, removed, and thinned to improve graft take. Dissection is then carried to the level of the breast capsule and the breast tissue and axillary tail are removed en bloc.⁵ During the dissection, the subcutaneous fat is left on the skin flap to provide appropriate contour and to avoid creating a concave-appearing chest wall. Prior to closure, the superior and inferior flaps are inspected for any visible residual breast tissue, which is removed if needed. In a circumareolar mastectomy, the nipple-areolar complex is also reduced but is preserved on a 1- to 1.5-cm-thick pedicle to maintain perfusion.⁵ The mastectomy is performed through an inferior periareolar incision and all visible breast tissue and the axillary tail are removed. Breast tissue specimens are sent for pathologic evaluation at the end of the procedure.

Following gender-affirming mastectomy, there is limited evidence to guide screening. During the patient visit, the provider should obtain a thorough history regarding mastectomy type, and if unknown, attempt to acquire the operative report detailing the procedure. For low-risk patients who undergo a subcutaneous mastectomy such as the double incision or circumareolar technique, screening mammography is not indicated nor is it technically feasible.⁹ For patients with a high-risk genetic mutation or a strong family history of breast cancer, monitoring with alternative modalities such as breast ultrasound or breast MRI may be beneficial, although there is no evidence to currently support this suggestion. Given the variety of surgical techniques of breast tissue removal, it is difficult to develop strong evidence-based guidelines. Annual chest wall examinations have been suggested as a screening modality; however, the clinical utility of clinical breast and chest exams has been debated and is no longer recommended as a screening method in cisgender patients.⁹ Clinicians can promote chest self-awareness and discuss the possibility of breast cancer in postmastectomy patients at annual examination visits. As research continues to resolve some of these unknowns, it is important that patients are informed of these areas of ambiguity and updated regarding any changes in screening recommendations.¹⁰

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2018 plastic surgery statistics report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2018/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2018.pdf. Accessed Aug. 20, 2021.

2. James SE et al. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016.

3. Agarwal CA et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:651-7.

4. Poudrier G et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;80:679-83.

5. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147:213e-21e.

6. Gooren LJ et al. J Sex Med. 2013;10:3129-34.

7. Brown GR and Jones KT. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149:191-8.

8. Deutsch MF et al. Semin Reprod Med. 2017;35:434-41.

9. Phillips J et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:1149-59.

10. Smith RA et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:297-316.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In medical school, I remember thinking that telling a patient “you have cancer” would be the most professionally challenging phrase I would ever utter. And don’t get me wrong – it certainly isn’t easy; but, compared with telling someone “you are infertile,” it’s a cakewalk.

Maybe it’s because people “have” cancer and cancer is something you “fight.” Or maybe because, unlike infertility, cancer has become a part of public life (think lapel pins and support groups) and is now easier to accept. On the other hand, someone “is” infertile. The condition is a source of embarrassment for the couple and is often hidden from society.

Here’s another concerning point of contrast: While the overall rate of cancer death has declined since the early 1990s, infertility is increasing. Reports now show that one in six couples have problems conceiving and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is increasing by 5%-10% per year. Many theories exist to explain these trends, chief among them the rise in average maternal age and the increasing incidence of obesity, as well as various other male- and female-specific factors.

But interestingly, recent data suggest that the most male of all male-specific factors – total sperm count – may be specifically to blame.

According to a recent meta-analysis, the average total sperm count in men declined by 59.3% between 1973 and 2011. While these data certainly have limitations – including the exclusion of non-English publications, the reliance on total sperm count and not sperm motility, and the potential bias of those patients willing to give a semen sample – the overall trend nevertheless seems to be clearly downward. What’s more concerning, if you believe the data presented, is that there does not appear to be a leveling off of the downward curve in total sperm count.

Think about that last statement. At the current rate of decline, the average sperm count will be zero in 2045. One of the lead authors on the meta-analysis, Hagai Levine, MD, MPH, goes so far as to state, “We should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

As a matter of personal philosophy, I’m not a huge fan of end-of-the-world predictions because they tend not to come true (think Montanism back in the 2nd century; the 2012 Mayan calendar scare; or my personal favorite, the Prophet Hen of Leeds). On the other hand, the overall trend of decreased total sperm count in the English-speaking world seems to be true and it raises the interesting question of why.

According to the Mayo Clinic, causes of decreased sperm count include everything from anatomical factors (like varicoceles and ejaculatory issues) and lifestyle issues (such as recreational drugs, weight gain, and emotional stress) to environmental exposures (heavy metal or radiation). The senior author of the aforementioned meta-analysis, Shanna Swan, PhD, has championed another theory: the widespread exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday plastics.

It turns out that at least two chemicals used in the plastics industry, bisphenol A and phthalates, can mimic the effect of estrogen when ingested into the body. Even low levels of these chemicals in our bodies can lead to health problems.

Consider for a moment the presence of plastics in your life: the plastic wrappings on your food, plastic containers for shampoos and beauty products, and even the coatings of our oral supplements. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at the urine of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found detectable concentrations of both of these chemicals in nearly all participants.

In 2045, I intend to be retired. But in the meantime, I think we all need to be aware of the potential impact that various endocrine-disrupting chemicals could be having on humanity. We need more research. If indeed the connection between endocrine disruptors and decreased sperm count is borne out, changes in our environmental exposure to these chemicals need to be made.

Henry Rosevear, MD, is a private-practice urologist based in Colorado Springs. He comes from a long line of doctors, but before entering medicine he served in the U.S. Navy as an officer aboard the USS Pittsburgh, a fast-attack submarine based out of New London, Conn. During his time in the Navy, he served in two deployments to the Persian Gulf, including combat experience as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dr. Rosevear disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As long as I can remember, children have been notoriously wasteful when dining in school cafeterias. Even those children who bring their own food often return home in the afternoon with their lunches half eaten. Not surprisingly, the food tossed out is often the healthier portion of the meal. Schools have tried a variety of strategies to curb this wastage, including using volunteer student monitors to police and encourage ecologically based recycling.

The authors of a recent study published on JAMA Network Open observed that when elementary and middle-school students were allowed a 20-minute seated lunch period they consumed more food and there was significantly less waste of fruits and vegetable compared with when the students’ lunch period was limited to 10 minutes. Interestingly, there was no difference in the beverage and entrée consumption when the lunch period was doubled.

The authors postulate that younger children may not have acquired the dexterity to feed themselves optimally in the shorter lunch period. I’m not sure I buy that argument. It may be simply that the children ate and drank their favorites first and needed a bit more time to allow their little guts to move things along. But, regardless of the explanation, the investigators’ observations deserve further study.

When I was in high school our lunch period was a full hour, which allowed me to make the half mile walk to home and back to eat a home-prepared meal. The noon hour was when school clubs and committees met and there was a full schedule of diversions to fill out the hour. I don’t recall the seated portion of the lunch period having any time restriction.

By the time my own children were in middle school, lunch periods lasted no longer than 20 minutes. I was not surprised to learn from this recent study that in some schools the seated lunch period has been shortened to 10 minutes. In some cases the truncated lunch periods are a response to space and time limitations. I fear that occasionally, educators and administrators have found it so difficult to keep young children who are accustomed to watching television while they eat engaged that the periods have been shortened to minimize the chaos.

Here in Maine, the governor has just announced plans to offer free breakfast and lunch to every student in response to a federal initiative. If we intend to make nutrition a cornerstone of the educational process this study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign suggests that we must do more than simply provide the food at no cost. We must somehow carve out more time in the day for the children to eat a healthy diet.

But, where is this time going to come from? Many school systems have already cannibalized physical education to the point that most children are not getting a healthy amount of exercise. It is unfortunate that we have come to expect public school systems to solve all of our societal ills and compensate for less-than-healthy home environments. But that is the reality. If we think nutrition and physical activity are important components of our children’s educations then we must make the time necessary to provide them.

Will this mean longer school days? And will those longer days cost money? You bet they will, but that may be the price we have to pay for healthier, better educated children.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

Another frustrated patient awaits transfer from the hospital to a nursing home. The do-not-resuscitate form must be signed by a physician. I – a physician assistant (PA) – am available, but the physician is with a medically unstable patient. Another patient in the ED waits for this hospital bed, lying uncomfortably on a stretcher in the hallway.

As a Florida PA who has practiced in other states with far fewer barriers to medical care, I applaud the advancement of HB 431. PAs can now sign certain documents, ensuring accelerated access to therapeutic interventions and honoring end-of-life wishes with timely do-not-resuscitate orders. Children now have improved access to psychiatric medications without a lengthy wait for an appointment with a psychiatrist, given the demand for mental health services and limited physician availability.

HB 431 expands medical care to patients in a state experiencing exponential growth in patient health care demands. HB 431 removes the following barriers to patient care as summarized by the Florida Academy of Physician Assistants. HB 431:

• Changes the physician:PA ratio from 1:4 to 1:10
• Allows PAs to authenticate documents such as death certificates and involuntary examinations; to order durable medical equipment, home health services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy
• Allows do-not-resuscitate orders, workers’ compensation claims, and school physical examinations with the exception of medical marijuana documents and maximum medical improvement/impairment rating documents for workman’s compensation
• Allows a fully licensed PA to procure medical devices and drugs
• Codifies that a PA can supervise a medical assistant
• Allows PAs to receive direct payment for services rendered
• Removes the long-standing restriction of PAs to prescribe any controlled psychiatric medication to patients aged under 18 years, and now allows PAs working with a pediatrician, family practice physician, internal medicine physician, or psychiatrist to prescribe a 14-day supply of schedule II psychiatric medications for those aged under 18 years
• Removes the requirement that a PA must inform a patient that they have the right to see the physician before a prescription is prescribed or dispensed
• Removes outdated language regarding prescriber number
• Improves the supervision data form submission process

Oregon HB 3036, also passed this year, significantly expands medical care provided by PAs. The Oregon legislation allows collaborative agreements with physicians at the practice level and removes the submission requirement for board approval. In contrast to Florida, Oregon completely eliminated PA ratios, improved PA prescriptive and dispensing regulations, and developed an environment that fosters team-based collaboration with accelerated patient access to quality care.

Many other states reduced these supervisory barriers during the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, federal systems such as the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and the military had removed supervisory restrictions, which subsequently reduced the overall cost of care.

PAs are trained to be flexible and meet the needs of the patient through a medical rather than nursing model. By allowing PAs to determine how best to collaborate with their clinical teams, patients are provided more efficient, patient-centered health care. Team members rely on each other for operational and clinical support through a degree of autonomy that contributes to effective patient management. These skills are expanded with the modernization of PA clinical practice and the removal of legislative barriers. A benefit to physicians through collaborative practice agreements is the reduction of their own liability for the care that PAs provide. Unlike Oregon, the state of Florida has not approved collaborative practice agreements and has retained physician supervisory barriers.

There are misconceptions in the medical community regarding the PA profession’s legislative goals. These efforts are not aimed at replacing physicians and competing for employment. The goal is to expand access and reduce barriers to patient care. There are not enough providers available to support comprehensive patient care. This is a fact.

Gaps in medical care exist and have existed since the PA profession was developed in the 1970s. Our vision has been to expand medical care through collaboration with physicians and assist with recruitment and retention challenges in various medical disciplines, particularly primary care. This is why all PA programs are based on a primary care medical model to care for patients across the lifespan, from infant care to geriatrics.

The spirit of collaboration in a team-based environment is challenged by these misconceptions and compounded by supervisory legislative and outdated practice requirements. PAs not only collaborate but also consult with and refer patients to other health care providers whenever the patient›s condition falls outside the PA’s education, training, and experience.

The changes in Florida’s HB 431 do not remove the requirement to clearly identify our roles. PAs still continue to identify themselves as physician assistants, and should a patient refuse to see a PA, they have the right to see any other provider they choose. Finally, patients are safe in the hands of a PA, as supported by numerous patient studies comparing PA clinical skills with other providers, including nurse practitioners, medical students, residents, fellows, and physicians.

Nonetheless, Florida is still behind other states in providing patients access to collaborative, team-based medical care with skilled PAs practicing as trained. Removing the remaining legislative barriers, hospital credentialing barriers, and health care perspectives will successfully provide patients superior medical care and improve the health outcomes of Florida residents.

Ilaria Gadalla, DMSc, PA-C, is a hospitalist at Treasure Coast Hospitalists in Port St. Lucie, Fla., a member of the Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board, and also serves as a physician assistant program director at South University in West Palm Beach, Fla.

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

I was rounding at the nursing home and my day began as it often did. I reviewed the doctor communication book at the nursing station to see which patients I needed to visit and checked in with the floor nurse for any important updates. I had about a dozen patients who needed to be seen. But by day’s end, four of my patients would stand out in my mind for the one thing they had in common – and the many things they did not.

A mother waiting for her son to visit

The first patient on my list was Rose. She had become increasingly withdrawn and less mobile. She used to walk the corridors asking when her son, Billy, would visit. We would all remind her that Billy visited her two or three times a week, but she never remembered the visits and blamed him for moving her out of her comfortable home in New Jersey where she’d lived with her husband before his death several years earlier.

Rose was declining, and we were trying to optimize her function and quality of life. She fell frequently while trying to get up at night to use the bathroom. None of our fall-reduction strategies had worked, and she had broken her hip a year prior. She’d fully recovered, but the combination of mental and physical frailty was becoming obvious to everyone, including her son. She had lost another five pounds and was approaching the end of her life.

“Good morning, Rose.” (She had demanded that I use her first name.) “How are you doing today?”

“I am doing okay, doctor. Have you seen Billy? When is he going to visit me?”

“I really can’t say when he’ll visit next, but I saw in a note that he was here yesterday.”

“No, he didn’t come to see me,” she said. “He doesn’t care about me. He spends more time with his wife and family than with his own mother.”

“Well, is there anything special that I can do for you?”

“Yes. Please tell Billy to visit his mother,” she said.

I completed her evaluation and made my way down the hall.
 

A wife ready to rejoin her husband

Next on my list was a widow named Violet. She reminded me of Whistler’s mother. As was her custom, she was sitting up in her chair reading her Bible when I came in. Her husband had been a minister, and she enjoyed reading the Bible or meditating for several hours each morning. Her bedside table had the most recent devotional and a picture of her husband in his vestments.

Violet was quiet and direct, and she had steely blue eyes that could communicate with your soul. Her nun-like quality was not overpowering; her manner was warm and welcoming.

“Good morning!” I said. “I hope I’m not bothering you.”

“Good morning, doctor. It’s always nice to see you.”

“I haven’t been by in a while, and I wanted to check your heart and lungs and make sure everything is going okay for you.”

“Of course; help yourself,” she said. “I feel fine. And as you know, I am ready to join my husband whenever the Lord calls me. I have lived a blessed life and do not wish to prolong it unless it is God’s will.”

“You certainly have made your wishes clear to me, and you are still in excellent health,” I said.

She really was in good health, and I made a quick note to call her daughter – who lived on the other side of the country – with an update.
 

A beauty queen ready for her close-up

Gabby was next on my list. She was a former beauty queen who had competed in local and state beauty contests. Her looks were the cornerstone of her identity, and she had done a truly remarkable job of maintaining her physical appearance.

Gabby had three attentive daughters who lived locally and supplied her with the latest makeup, beauty creams, and anti-aging nostrums. She always managed to look natural (and not like a caricature) with her face made up and her blond wig in place. Over the years, she’d made good use of the services offered by the local plastic surgeons and dermatologists. And to her credit – and theirs – she looked 30 years younger than her chronological age. In fairness, she had also taken good care of her overall health.

Gabby’s nickname was appropriate as she was chatty, to the extreme. She enjoyed being the center of attention.

When I entered her room, she was putting on her makeup. She was seated near her bedside table, which looked like it belonged in the backstage dressing room of a Broadway star. Lined up on the table were various bottles, brushes, and a mirror surrounded by lights.

“Oh, doctor, you can’t come in now. I’m a dreadful mess,” she said. “Please come back in 10 minutes. I am so embarrassed that you are seeing me this way. I just have a few things to fix, and then I will be presentable. My daughters are taking me out for lunch at the club, and I do not want to look like an old lady.”

“Gabby,” I said, “I have seen you before without your makeup. Do you remember last year when you developed pneumonia? You were really sick, and frankly, we were not sure you were going to pull through. One of the clues that you were getting ill was your smeared mascara and lipstick.”

I pressed on, and she let me examine her while she continued to apply her eyeliner.

“Everything sounds good. And I like your fresh pedicure,” I said. “Is there anything I can do for you?”

“No, thank you. Have a nice day, doctor!”
 

A mother devoted to her daughter’s care

Unlike my other patients, Mabel shared a room with a family member – her daughter, Hope. Mabel’s daughter had a congenital illness with significant physical, functional, and cognitive deficits. Mabel had considerable guilt regarding her daughter’s condition. Mabel’s husband had divorced her decades earlier, and she had devoted her life to caring for Hope. When Mabel’s health began to decline and she realized she could no longer care for Hope alone, the two moved into the facility together. Mabel told me that she simply couldn’t die before her daughter, because no one could oversee her care like she could.

Mabel was frail physically but sharp and vigilant mentally. Hope had had numerous hospitalizations, and Mabel had been with her through each experience. Hope could not communicate with others, but Mabel could express Hope’s concerns.

“How are you doing today?” I asked.

“Not well. I am concerned about Hope. She has not had a bowel movement in two days and does not want to eat breakfast.”

I checked out Hope, and her examination was reassuring. She looked up at me with her distorted features and managed a broad smile. I went back over to Mabel.

“She likes you, doctor. She thinks you smell good.”

I turned to Hope and thanked her for the compliment.

“I will check with the nurse and see if we can give you something simple to help your bowels.”

“Warm prune juice often works,” said Mabel. “Please come by again tomorrow to check on her. I don’t want this to progress. She is miserable.”

“I will be back tomorrow, and I will make a special trip to see you both.”
 

Upon reflection ...

When I sat down to write my clinical notes for the day, I realized that Rose, Violet, Gabby, and Mabel were each over 100 years old. I had seen four centenarians in a single day! Each of them manifested a fundamental principle of geriatrics: The older we are, the more unique and differentiated we become. A one-size approach to geriatric care does not fit all. Our care must be personalized to the unique individual in front of us.

Patients’ names and some details have been changed to protect their privacy. Dr. Williams is the Emeritus Ward K. Ensminger Distinguished Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville and attending physician, internal medicine and geriatrics, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, N.C. He disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

I was rounding at the nursing home and my day began as it often did. I reviewed the doctor communication book at the nursing station to see which patients I needed to visit and checked in with the floor nurse for any important updates. I had about a dozen patients who needed to be seen. But by day’s end, four of my patients would stand out in my mind for the one thing they had in common – and the many things they did not.

A mother waiting for her son to visit

The first patient on my list was Rose. She had become increasingly withdrawn and less mobile. She used to walk the corridors asking when her son, Billy, would visit. We would all remind her that Billy visited her two or three times a week, but she never remembered the visits and blamed him for moving her out of her comfortable home in New Jersey where she’d lived with her husband before his death several years earlier.

Rose was declining, and we were trying to optimize her function and quality of life. She fell frequently while trying to get up at night to use the bathroom. None of our fall-reduction strategies had worked, and she had broken her hip a year prior. She’d fully recovered, but the combination of mental and physical frailty was becoming obvious to everyone, including her son. She had lost another five pounds and was approaching the end of her life.

“Good morning, Rose.” (She had demanded that I use her first name.) “How are you doing today?”

“I am doing okay, doctor. Have you seen Billy? When is he going to visit me?”

“I really can’t say when he’ll visit next, but I saw in a note that he was here yesterday.”

“No, he didn’t come to see me,” she said. “He doesn’t care about me. He spends more time with his wife and family than with his own mother.”

“Well, is there anything special that I can do for you?”

“Yes. Please tell Billy to visit his mother,” she said.

I completed her evaluation and made my way down the hall.
 

A wife ready to rejoin her husband

Next on my list was a widow named Violet. She reminded me of Whistler’s mother. As was her custom, she was sitting up in her chair reading her Bible when I came in. Her husband had been a minister, and she enjoyed reading the Bible or meditating for several hours each morning. Her bedside table had the most recent devotional and a picture of her husband in his vestments.

Violet was quiet and direct, and she had steely blue eyes that could communicate with your soul. Her nun-like quality was not overpowering; her manner was warm and welcoming.

“Good morning!” I said. “I hope I’m not bothering you.”

“Good morning, doctor. It’s always nice to see you.”

“I haven’t been by in a while, and I wanted to check your heart and lungs and make sure everything is going okay for you.”

“Of course; help yourself,” she said. “I feel fine. And as you know, I am ready to join my husband whenever the Lord calls me. I have lived a blessed life and do not wish to prolong it unless it is God’s will.”

“You certainly have made your wishes clear to me, and you are still in excellent health,” I said.

She really was in good health, and I made a quick note to call her daughter – who lived on the other side of the country – with an update.
 

A beauty queen ready for her close-up

Gabby was next on my list. She was a former beauty queen who had competed in local and state beauty contests. Her looks were the cornerstone of her identity, and she had done a truly remarkable job of maintaining her physical appearance.

Gabby had three attentive daughters who lived locally and supplied her with the latest makeup, beauty creams, and anti-aging nostrums. She always managed to look natural (and not like a caricature) with her face made up and her blond wig in place. Over the years, she’d made good use of the services offered by the local plastic surgeons and dermatologists. And to her credit – and theirs – she looked 30 years younger than her chronological age. In fairness, she had also taken good care of her overall health.

Gabby’s nickname was appropriate as she was chatty, to the extreme. She enjoyed being the center of attention.

When I entered her room, she was putting on her makeup. She was seated near her bedside table, which looked like it belonged in the backstage dressing room of a Broadway star. Lined up on the table were various bottles, brushes, and a mirror surrounded by lights.

“Oh, doctor, you can’t come in now. I’m a dreadful mess,” she said. “Please come back in 10 minutes. I am so embarrassed that you are seeing me this way. I just have a few things to fix, and then I will be presentable. My daughters are taking me out for lunch at the club, and I do not want to look like an old lady.”

“Gabby,” I said, “I have seen you before without your makeup. Do you remember last year when you developed pneumonia? You were really sick, and frankly, we were not sure you were going to pull through. One of the clues that you were getting ill was your smeared mascara and lipstick.”

I pressed on, and she let me examine her while she continued to apply her eyeliner.

“Everything sounds good. And I like your fresh pedicure,” I said. “Is there anything I can do for you?”

“No, thank you. Have a nice day, doctor!”
 

A mother devoted to her daughter’s care

Unlike my other patients, Mabel shared a room with a family member – her daughter, Hope. Mabel’s daughter had a congenital illness with significant physical, functional, and cognitive deficits. Mabel had considerable guilt regarding her daughter’s condition. Mabel’s husband had divorced her decades earlier, and she had devoted her life to caring for Hope. When Mabel’s health began to decline and she realized she could no longer care for Hope alone, the two moved into the facility together. Mabel told me that she simply couldn’t die before her daughter, because no one could oversee her care like she could.

Mabel was frail physically but sharp and vigilant mentally. Hope had had numerous hospitalizations, and Mabel had been with her through each experience. Hope could not communicate with others, but Mabel could express Hope’s concerns.

“How are you doing today?” I asked.

“Not well. I am concerned about Hope. She has not had a bowel movement in two days and does not want to eat breakfast.”

I checked out Hope, and her examination was reassuring. She looked up at me with her distorted features and managed a broad smile. I went back over to Mabel.

“She likes you, doctor. She thinks you smell good.”

I turned to Hope and thanked her for the compliment.

“I will check with the nurse and see if we can give you something simple to help your bowels.”

“Warm prune juice often works,” said Mabel. “Please come by again tomorrow to check on her. I don’t want this to progress. She is miserable.”

“I will be back tomorrow, and I will make a special trip to see you both.”
 

Upon reflection ...

When I sat down to write my clinical notes for the day, I realized that Rose, Violet, Gabby, and Mabel were each over 100 years old. I had seen four centenarians in a single day! Each of them manifested a fundamental principle of geriatrics: The older we are, the more unique and differentiated we become. A one-size approach to geriatric care does not fit all. Our care must be personalized to the unique individual in front of us.

Patients’ names and some details have been changed to protect their privacy. Dr. Williams is the Emeritus Ward K. Ensminger Distinguished Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville and attending physician, internal medicine and geriatrics, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, N.C. He disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

I was rounding at the nursing home and my day began as it often did. I reviewed the doctor communication book at the nursing station to see which patients I needed to visit and checked in with the floor nurse for any important updates. I had about a dozen patients who needed to be seen. But by day’s end, four of my patients would stand out in my mind for the one thing they had in common – and the many things they did not.

A mother waiting for her son to visit

The first patient on my list was Rose. She had become increasingly withdrawn and less mobile. She used to walk the corridors asking when her son, Billy, would visit. We would all remind her that Billy visited her two or three times a week, but she never remembered the visits and blamed him for moving her out of her comfortable home in New Jersey where she’d lived with her husband before his death several years earlier.

Rose was declining, and we were trying to optimize her function and quality of life. She fell frequently while trying to get up at night to use the bathroom. None of our fall-reduction strategies had worked, and she had broken her hip a year prior. She’d fully recovered, but the combination of mental and physical frailty was becoming obvious to everyone, including her son. She had lost another five pounds and was approaching the end of her life.

“Good morning, Rose.” (She had demanded that I use her first name.) “How are you doing today?”

“I am doing okay, doctor. Have you seen Billy? When is he going to visit me?”

“I really can’t say when he’ll visit next, but I saw in a note that he was here yesterday.”

“No, he didn’t come to see me,” she said. “He doesn’t care about me. He spends more time with his wife and family than with his own mother.”

“Well, is there anything special that I can do for you?”

“Yes. Please tell Billy to visit his mother,” she said.

I completed her evaluation and made my way down the hall.
 

A wife ready to rejoin her husband

Next on my list was a widow named Violet. She reminded me of Whistler’s mother. As was her custom, she was sitting up in her chair reading her Bible when I came in. Her husband had been a minister, and she enjoyed reading the Bible or meditating for several hours each morning. Her bedside table had the most recent devotional and a picture of her husband in his vestments.

Violet was quiet and direct, and she had steely blue eyes that could communicate with your soul. Her nun-like quality was not overpowering; her manner was warm and welcoming.

“Good morning!” I said. “I hope I’m not bothering you.”

“Good morning, doctor. It’s always nice to see you.”

“I haven’t been by in a while, and I wanted to check your heart and lungs and make sure everything is going okay for you.”

“Of course; help yourself,” she said. “I feel fine. And as you know, I am ready to join my husband whenever the Lord calls me. I have lived a blessed life and do not wish to prolong it unless it is God’s will.”

“You certainly have made your wishes clear to me, and you are still in excellent health,” I said.

She really was in good health, and I made a quick note to call her daughter – who lived on the other side of the country – with an update.
 

A beauty queen ready for her close-up

Gabby was next on my list. She was a former beauty queen who had competed in local and state beauty contests. Her looks were the cornerstone of her identity, and she had done a truly remarkable job of maintaining her physical appearance.

Gabby had three attentive daughters who lived locally and supplied her with the latest makeup, beauty creams, and anti-aging nostrums. She always managed to look natural (and not like a caricature) with her face made up and her blond wig in place. Over the years, she’d made good use of the services offered by the local plastic surgeons and dermatologists. And to her credit – and theirs – she looked 30 years younger than her chronological age. In fairness, she had also taken good care of her overall health.

Gabby’s nickname was appropriate as she was chatty, to the extreme. She enjoyed being the center of attention.

When I entered her room, she was putting on her makeup. She was seated near her bedside table, which looked like it belonged in the backstage dressing room of a Broadway star. Lined up on the table were various bottles, brushes, and a mirror surrounded by lights.

“Oh, doctor, you can’t come in now. I’m a dreadful mess,” she said. “Please come back in 10 minutes. I am so embarrassed that you are seeing me this way. I just have a few things to fix, and then I will be presentable. My daughters are taking me out for lunch at the club, and I do not want to look like an old lady.”

“Gabby,” I said, “I have seen you before without your makeup. Do you remember last year when you developed pneumonia? You were really sick, and frankly, we were not sure you were going to pull through. One of the clues that you were getting ill was your smeared mascara and lipstick.”

I pressed on, and she let me examine her while she continued to apply her eyeliner.

“Everything sounds good. And I like your fresh pedicure,” I said. “Is there anything I can do for you?”

“No, thank you. Have a nice day, doctor!”
 

A mother devoted to her daughter’s care

Unlike my other patients, Mabel shared a room with a family member – her daughter, Hope. Mabel’s daughter had a congenital illness with significant physical, functional, and cognitive deficits. Mabel had considerable guilt regarding her daughter’s condition. Mabel’s husband had divorced her decades earlier, and she had devoted her life to caring for Hope. When Mabel’s health began to decline and she realized she could no longer care for Hope alone, the two moved into the facility together. Mabel told me that she simply couldn’t die before her daughter, because no one could oversee her care like she could.

Mabel was frail physically but sharp and vigilant mentally. Hope had had numerous hospitalizations, and Mabel had been with her through each experience. Hope could not communicate with others, but Mabel could express Hope’s concerns.

“How are you doing today?” I asked.

“Not well. I am concerned about Hope. She has not had a bowel movement in two days and does not want to eat breakfast.”

I checked out Hope, and her examination was reassuring. She looked up at me with her distorted features and managed a broad smile. I went back over to Mabel.

“She likes you, doctor. She thinks you smell good.”

I turned to Hope and thanked her for the compliment.

“I will check with the nurse and see if we can give you something simple to help your bowels.”

“Warm prune juice often works,” said Mabel. “Please come by again tomorrow to check on her. I don’t want this to progress. She is miserable.”

“I will be back tomorrow, and I will make a special trip to see you both.”
 

Upon reflection ...

When I sat down to write my clinical notes for the day, I realized that Rose, Violet, Gabby, and Mabel were each over 100 years old. I had seen four centenarians in a single day! Each of them manifested a fundamental principle of geriatrics: The older we are, the more unique and differentiated we become. A one-size approach to geriatric care does not fit all. Our care must be personalized to the unique individual in front of us.

Patients’ names and some details have been changed to protect their privacy. Dr. Williams is the Emeritus Ward K. Ensminger Distinguished Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville and attending physician, internal medicine and geriatrics, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, N.C. He disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Postpartum depression, in many respects, has become a household term. Over the last decade, there has been increasing awareness of the importance of screening for postpartum depression, with increased systematic screening across clinical settings where care is delivered to women during pregnancy and the postpartum period. There have also been greater efforts to identify women who are suffering postpartum depression and to support them with appropriate clinical interventions, whether through psychotherapy and/or pharmacologic therapy. Clinical interventions are supplemented by the increasing awareness of the value of community-based support groups for women who are suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders.

Despite the growing, appropriate focus on recognition and acute treatment of postpartum depression as well as assessing clinical outcomes for those who suffer from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, less attention has been given to postpartum psychosis, the most severe form of postpartum depression. It is indeed, the least common postpartum psychiatric syndrome (1 in 1,000 births) and comes to public attention when there has been a tragedy during the acute postpartum period such as maternal suicide or infanticide. In this sense, postpartum psychosis is ironically an underappreciated clinical entity across America given its severity, the effect it has on longer-term psychiatric morbidity, and its effect on children and families.

Our group at the Center for Women’s Mental Health has been interested in postpartum psychosis for years and started the Postpartum Psychosis Project in an effort to better understand the phenomenology, course, treatment, outcome, and genomic underpinnings of postpartum psychosis. Risk factors that are well established for postpartum psychosis have been described and overwhelmingly include patients with bipolar disorder. The risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis in women who have had a previous episode is as great as 75%-90% in the absence of prophylactic intervention. With that said, we are extremely interested in understanding the etiology of postpartum psychosis. Various studies over the last 5 years have looked at a whole host of psychosocial as well as neurobiologic variables that may contribute to risk for postpartum psychosis, including dysregulation of the stress axis, heightened inflammation as well as a history of child adversity and heightened experience of stress during the perinatal period.

There have also been anecdotal reports during Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health of higher recent rates of postpartum psychosis manifesting during the postpartum period. This is a clinical observation and has not been systematically studied. However, one can wonder whether the experience of the pandemic has constituted a stressor for at-risk women, tipping the scales toward women becoming ill, or whether clinicians are seeing this finding more because of our ability to observe it more within the context of the pandemic.

Precise quantification of risk for postpartum psychosis is complicated; as noted, women with bipolar disorder have a predictably high risk for getting ill during the postpartum period and many go on to have clinical courses consistent with recurrent bipolar disorder. However, there are other women who have circumscribed episodes of psychotic illness in the postpartum period who recover and are totally well without any evidence of psychiatric disorder until they have another child, at which time the risk for recurrence of postpartum psychosis is very high. Interest in developing a model of risk that could reliably predict an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis is on the minds of researchers around the world.

One recent study that highlights the multiple factors involved in risk of postpartum psychosis involved a prospective longitudinal study of a group of women who were followed across the peripartum period from the third trimester until 4 weeks postpartum. In this group, 51 women were at increased risk for postpartum psychosis based on their diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or a previous episode of postpartum psychosis. These women were matched with a control group with no past or current diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or family history of postpartum psychosis. The findings suggested that women at risk for postpartum psychosis who experienced a psychiatric relapse during the first 4 weeks postpartum relative to women at risk who remained well had histories of severe childhood adversity as well as biomarkers consistent with a dysregulated stress axis (a statistically higher daily cortisol level). This is consistent with other data that have implicated the complex role between psychosocial variables as well as neurobiologic variables, such as a dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and other studies that suggest that dysregulated inflammatory status may also drive risk for postpartum psychosis (Hazelgrove K et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105218).

At the end of the day, postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric and obstetrical emergency. In our center, it is rare for women not to be hospitalized with this condition to ensure the safety of the mother as well as her newborn, and to also get her recompensated and functioning as quickly and as significantly as possible. However, an interesting extrapolation of the findings noted by Hazelgrove and colleagues is that it raises the question of what effective treatments might be used to mitigate risk for those at greatest risk for postpartum psychosis. For example, are there other treatments over and above the few effective ones that have been studied as prophylactic pharmacologic interventions that might mitigate risk for recurrence of an illness as serious as postpartum psychosis?

The data suggesting dysregulation of the stress axis as a predictor variable for risk in women vulnerable to postpartum psychosis opens an array of opportunities that are nonpharmacologic, such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy or other interventions that help to modulate the stress axis. This is a terrific opportunity to have pharmacologic intervention meet nonpharmacologic intervention to potentially mitigate risk for postpartum psychosis with its attendant serious sequelae.

In our own work, where we are evaluating genomic data in an extremely well-characterized group of women with known histories of postpartum psychosis, we are interested to see if we can enhance understanding of the model of risk for postpartum psychosis by factoring in genomic underpinning, history of diagnosis, and psychosocial variables to optimally craft interventions for this population of at-risk women. This brings us one step closer to the future in women’s mental health, to the practice of “precision reproductive psychiatry,” matching interventions to specific presentations across perinatal populations.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Inflation is the senility of democracies.

–Sylvia Townsend Warner

What is the greatest threat to your practice? COVID? Government rules and regulations? Stagnant reimbursements? Electronic medical records? No, all of these are minor annoyances in the face of the practice killer, inflation.

Physicians live in a closed box where medical reimbursements are fixed, directly or by contract proxy to the government (Medicare) pay rate. Inflation is projected to be between 5% and 10% this year. We cannot increase our rates to increase the salaries of our employees, cover our increased medical disposable costs, and pay more for our state licensures and DEA registrations. No, we must try to find savings in our budget, which we have been squeezing for years.

Currently, medicine is facing a 9.75% cut in Medicare reimbursements, which will reset most private insurance rates, based on a percentage of Medicare. The temporary 3.75% conversion factor (CF) increase for all services is expiring. Also expiring is the 2% sequester from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), signed into law in August 2011. This was originally scheduled to sunset in 2021, but is going to continue to 2030.

A 4% statutory pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) sequester resulting from passage of the American Rescue Plan Act is being imposed. Statutory PAYGO is a policy written into law (it can be changed only through new legislation) that requires deficit neutrality overall in the laws (other than annual appropriations) enacted by Congress and imposes automatic spending reductions at the end of the year if such laws increase the deficit when they are added together.

There is a statutory freeze on Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) updates until 2026, at which time an annual increase of 0.25%, which is lower than inflation, will be enacted. This adds up to a 9.75% cut in Medicare pay until at least 2026. Recall that almost all of your private insurance contracts are tied to Medicare (some more, some less) and that this cut to the physician is doubled if your overhead is fixed at the typical 50% for most practices. This means an almost 20% cut in take-home pay for most physicians.

Now, when considering the most recent inflation number, which projects 5%-10% inflation for this year and at least 2% annually in the future, which compounds yearly (the Fed target), you are looking at catastrophic numbers.

The conversion factor – the pool of money doled out to physicians – has failed to keep pace with inflation – even at 2%-3% a year – and reimbursement is only 50% of what it was when created in 1998, despite small increases by Congress along the way. A recent Wall Street Journal guest editorial claimed that Medicare payments benefited from cost of living adjustments, same as Social Security. I do not agree, hence the 50% pay gap since 1998.

In addition, the costs of running a practice have increased by 37% between 2001 and 2020, 1.7% per year, according to the Medicare Economic Index.

Some of this may include general inflation, but certainly new OSHA rules, electronic medical records, Medicare quality improvement measures, and assorted other costs do not. So based on my own conservative estimate, on top of the 50% decline in the payment pool, physicians’ noninflationary operating costs increased by at least another 10% over the last 20 odd years. This is a 60% decline in reimbursements!

Medicare payments have been under pressure from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anti-inflationary payment policies for more than 20 years. While physician services represent a very modest portion of the overall growth in health care costs, they are an easy target for cuts when policymakers seek to limit spending. Although we avoided direct cuts to reimbursements caused by the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula (SGR) – which was enacted in 1997 and repealed in 2015 – Medicare provider payments have remained constrained by a budget-neutral financing system.

There used to be ways out of the box. Physicians could go to work for hospitals or have their practices acquired by them, resulting in much better hospital-based reimbursement. This has been eliminated by site-neutral payments, which while instituted by President Trump, are unopposed by President Biden. You could also join larger groups with some loss of autonomy, which could presumably negotiate better rates with private insurers as another way out, but these rates are almost always based on a percentage of Medicare as noted above.

There may be a bit of good news, with price transparency being instituted, which again is unopposed by the Biden administration. At least private practice physicians may be able to show their services are a bargain compared to hospitals.

One could also take the low road, and sell out to private equity, but I suspect these deals will become much less attractive since some of these entities are going broke and all will feel the bite of lower reimbursements.

Physicians and patients should rise up and demand better reimbursements for physicians, or there will be no physicians to see. This is not greed, a bigger house, or a newer car, this is becoming a matter of practice survival. And seniors are not greedy, they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Medicare in taxes for health insurance in retirement.

Physicians and retirees should contact their federal legislators and let them know a 9.75% cut is untenable and ask for Medicare rates to be fixed to the cost of living, just as Social Security is. Before we fund trillions of dollars in new government programs, perhaps we should look to the solvency of the existing ones we have.
 

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.