Feature

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 26 announced charges against 14 defendants across the country who allegedly engaged in health care fraud schemes that exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in over $143 million in false billings to Medicare.

Among the defendants, a DOJ news release said, were a telemedicine company executive, a physician, marketers, and medical business owners.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services separately announced that it had taken “adverse administrative actions” against more than 50 providers for their involvement in fraud schemes related to COVID-19 or the abuse of CMS programs that were designed to encourage access to medical care during the pandemic.

Several of the defendants allegedly offered COVID-19 tests to Medicare beneficiaries in senior living facilities, drive-through COVID-19 testing sites, and medical offices to induce the beneficiaries to provide their personal identifying information and a saliva or a blood sample.

The DOJ charges claim the defendants then misused the information and the samples to submit claims to Medicare for unrelated, medically unnecessary, and far more expensive lab tests, including cancer genetic testing, allergy testing, and respiratory pathogen panel tests.

In some cases, it’s alleged, the lab results were not provided to the individuals in a timely fashion or were not reliable.

Other defendants are charged with exploiting temporary changes in CMS telehealth regulations that were designed to increase access to health care during the pandemic. In these cases, which the DOJ said were the first charges related to the expansion of telehealth under the COVID-19 emergency declaration, the defendants allegedly submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for sham telemedicine encounters that did not occur.

“As part of these cases, medical professionals are alleged to have [been] offered and paid bribes in exchange for the medical professionals’ referral of unnecessary testing,” the DOJ news release said. However, no physicians were identified by the department.

Commenting on this aspect of the law enforcement action, FBI Director Christopher Wray said in the release: “Medical providers have been the unsung heroes for the American public throughout the pandemic. It’s disheartening that some have abused their authorities and committed COVID-19–related fraud against trusting citizens. The FBI, along with our federal law enforcement and private sector partners, are committed to continuing to combat health care fraud and protect the American people.”

The law enforcement action includes the third set of criminal charges related to the misuse of Provider Relief Fund monies, according to the release.

More than 340 individuals were charged in September 2020 with submitting $6 billion in fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private insurers for telehealth consultations and substance abuse treatment. About $4.5 billion of that was related to telehealth, as reported by this news organization.

The new criminal charges were brought in federal district courts in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
 

Case summaries

The DOJ provided several case summaries. One defendant, lab owner Billy Joe Taylor of Lavaca, Ark., was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud the government of over $42 million by filing false claims that were billed in combination with COVID-19 testing claims. He also allegedly billed for tests that were not performed.

Petros Hannesyan of Burbank, Calif., the owner of a home health agency, was charged with obtaining over $229,000 from COVID-19 relief programs under false pretenses. His firm allegedly misappropriated funds from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund and submitted false loan applications and a false loan agreement to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.

Michael Stein and Leonel Palatnik of Palm Beach County, Fla., were charged in a connection with an alleged $73 million conspiracy to defraud the government and to pay and receive health care kickbacks during the pandemic.

Mr. Stein, who owned a “purported” consulting company, and Mr. Palatnik, who owned testing labs in Texas, allegedly exploited Medicare’s waiver of telehealth restrictions “by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations. In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to [Mr. Palatnik’s] laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
 

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

As mounting evidence points to a significant psychiatric component of COVID-19, experts are concerned about an influx of survivors presenting with persistent mental health problems and how best to prepare.

Clinicians should be aware that patients who have had COVID frequently develop psychiatric symptoms, Silvia S. Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“There should be more screening of all patients recovering from a COVID infection for anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression, as well as referral to services, including psychotherapy, and medication as needed,” said Dr. Martins, who, along with colleagues, uncovered a high rate of these symptoms in patients who had the disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an enormous social, emotional, and public health toll. It has disrupted lives and caused stress, fear, and uncertainty about loss of health and income, not to mention forced isolation.

In addition, a significant number of patients who contract COVID-19 continue to have symptoms after the acute phase of the illness. This post-COVID, or “long-haul,” syndrome isn’t well defined; experts cite a range of symptoms that persist for weeks or months.

These ongoing symptoms can include cough, fatigue, and chronic pain, as well as psychiatric complaints. As reported by this news organization, an observational study of more than 230,000 U.S. patient health records revealed that one in three COVID-19 survivors received a psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis within 6 months of contracting the virus.

The most common psychiatric diagnoses were anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance misuse disorders, and insomnia.
 

Significant symptoms even in mild cases

Another study showed that even those with mild COVID-19 may experience psychiatric symptoms independently of previous psychiatric diagnoses. Results revealed that 26% of the sample of almost 900 patients reported depression, 22% reported anxiety, and 17% reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress 2 months after testing positive for the virus. This finding is important because the majority of individuals who contract COVID-19 have a mild case.

“We saw very high levels of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in people who had mild disease,” study investigator João Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia, MD, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of epidemiology, Columbia University, said in an interview.

He attributed these symptoms in part to long periods of isolation, even from relatives in the same household, in cramped spaces typical of large cities such as São Paulo.

Social isolation can have a huge impact on persons who depend on social connections and relationships, Vivian Pender, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The fact that we have not been able to see our colleagues, our friends, our family, and in the case of psychiatrists, even our patients has taken a toll on everyone, and that leads to more stress, more anxiety,” she said.

National surveys show that psychiatric symptoms occur after acute COVID. One survey revealed that over 50% of 3,900 respondents who had COVID reported having at least moderate symptoms of major depression.
 

Unique depression subtype?

Another survey, slated for publication later this year, shows that among patients who have had COVID, risk factors for depression as well as certain symptoms of depression differ somewhat from those typical of major depressive disorder, lead investigator Roy Perlis, MD, professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

This might suggest a neurobiological element. Researchers are speculating as to whether lingering psychiatric problems that occur after having COVID are linked to the psychosocial impact of the disease or to pathological processes, such as inflammation, that affect the brain.

Although rates of post-COVID psychiatric symptoms vary from study to study, “they seem to be pretty enduring,” noted Faith Gunning, PhD, vice chair of research, department of psychology, Weill Cornell Medicine, who specializes in clinical neuropsychology.

“So they’re not just a brief response” to getting sick, a fact that points to the possible need for treatment, she told this news organization. “In some of the work that’s starting to emerge, it does appear that the symptoms persist, at least for a relatively large subset of individuals.”

Although depression typically affects twice as many women as men, these new surveys show that, after COVID, “that difference is not so distinct,” said Dr. Gunning.

It’s unclear why this is, but it could be cause by financial stresses that may affect men to a greater extent, she added. “There is so much we’re still learning.”
 

Increased suicide risk?

Other researchers, including Leo Sher, MD, professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and director of inpatient psychiatry, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in New York, are concerned that higher rates of psychiatric symptoms among patients with long-haul COVID raise the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior.

Studies of suicidality in COVID-19 survivors “are urgently needed,” said Dr. Sher in an article published in the Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians.

“We need to study what factors may increase suicide risk among the COVID-19 survivors during and after the recovery. We also need to investigate whether there is a long-term increased suicide risk among COVID-19 survivors,” Dr. Sher said.

COVID-19 is not unique among viral respiratory diseases in being associated with long-term mental health problems. Research shows that survivors of the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome experienced increased psychological distress that persisted for at least a year, as did patients who in 2015 had Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).

Some experts believe clinicians should screen patients for mental health symptoms after the acute phase of COVID and offer early and prolonged care.

“Early mental health intervention such as psychotherapy and supportive groups could play an important role in preventing incident mental health problems for post-COVID sufferers,” said Dr. Castaldelli-Maia.

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

As mounting evidence points to a significant psychiatric component of COVID-19, experts are concerned about an influx of survivors presenting with persistent mental health problems and how best to prepare.

Clinicians should be aware that patients who have had COVID frequently develop psychiatric symptoms, Silvia S. Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“There should be more screening of all patients recovering from a COVID infection for anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression, as well as referral to services, including psychotherapy, and medication as needed,” said Dr. Martins, who, along with colleagues, uncovered a high rate of these symptoms in patients who had the disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an enormous social, emotional, and public health toll. It has disrupted lives and caused stress, fear, and uncertainty about loss of health and income, not to mention forced isolation.

In addition, a significant number of patients who contract COVID-19 continue to have symptoms after the acute phase of the illness. This post-COVID, or “long-haul,” syndrome isn’t well defined; experts cite a range of symptoms that persist for weeks or months.

These ongoing symptoms can include cough, fatigue, and chronic pain, as well as psychiatric complaints. As reported by this news organization, an observational study of more than 230,000 U.S. patient health records revealed that one in three COVID-19 survivors received a psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis within 6 months of contracting the virus.

The most common psychiatric diagnoses were anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance misuse disorders, and insomnia.
 

Significant symptoms even in mild cases

Another study showed that even those with mild COVID-19 may experience psychiatric symptoms independently of previous psychiatric diagnoses. Results revealed that 26% of the sample of almost 900 patients reported depression, 22% reported anxiety, and 17% reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress 2 months after testing positive for the virus. This finding is important because the majority of individuals who contract COVID-19 have a mild case.

“We saw very high levels of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in people who had mild disease,” study investigator João Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia, MD, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of epidemiology, Columbia University, said in an interview.

He attributed these symptoms in part to long periods of isolation, even from relatives in the same household, in cramped spaces typical of large cities such as São Paulo.

Social isolation can have a huge impact on persons who depend on social connections and relationships, Vivian Pender, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The fact that we have not been able to see our colleagues, our friends, our family, and in the case of psychiatrists, even our patients has taken a toll on everyone, and that leads to more stress, more anxiety,” she said.

National surveys show that psychiatric symptoms occur after acute COVID. One survey revealed that over 50% of 3,900 respondents who had COVID reported having at least moderate symptoms of major depression.
 

Unique depression subtype?

Another survey, slated for publication later this year, shows that among patients who have had COVID, risk factors for depression as well as certain symptoms of depression differ somewhat from those typical of major depressive disorder, lead investigator Roy Perlis, MD, professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

This might suggest a neurobiological element. Researchers are speculating as to whether lingering psychiatric problems that occur after having COVID are linked to the psychosocial impact of the disease or to pathological processes, such as inflammation, that affect the brain.

Although rates of post-COVID psychiatric symptoms vary from study to study, “they seem to be pretty enduring,” noted Faith Gunning, PhD, vice chair of research, department of psychology, Weill Cornell Medicine, who specializes in clinical neuropsychology.

“So they’re not just a brief response” to getting sick, a fact that points to the possible need for treatment, she told this news organization. “In some of the work that’s starting to emerge, it does appear that the symptoms persist, at least for a relatively large subset of individuals.”

Although depression typically affects twice as many women as men, these new surveys show that, after COVID, “that difference is not so distinct,” said Dr. Gunning.

It’s unclear why this is, but it could be cause by financial stresses that may affect men to a greater extent, she added. “There is so much we’re still learning.”
 

Increased suicide risk?

Other researchers, including Leo Sher, MD, professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and director of inpatient psychiatry, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in New York, are concerned that higher rates of psychiatric symptoms among patients with long-haul COVID raise the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior.

Studies of suicidality in COVID-19 survivors “are urgently needed,” said Dr. Sher in an article published in the Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians.

“We need to study what factors may increase suicide risk among the COVID-19 survivors during and after the recovery. We also need to investigate whether there is a long-term increased suicide risk among COVID-19 survivors,” Dr. Sher said.

COVID-19 is not unique among viral respiratory diseases in being associated with long-term mental health problems. Research shows that survivors of the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome experienced increased psychological distress that persisted for at least a year, as did patients who in 2015 had Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).

Some experts believe clinicians should screen patients for mental health symptoms after the acute phase of COVID and offer early and prolonged care.

“Early mental health intervention such as psychotherapy and supportive groups could play an important role in preventing incident mental health problems for post-COVID sufferers,” said Dr. Castaldelli-Maia.

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

As mounting evidence points to a significant psychiatric component of COVID-19, experts are concerned about an influx of survivors presenting with persistent mental health problems and how best to prepare.

Clinicians should be aware that patients who have had COVID frequently develop psychiatric symptoms, Silvia S. Martins, MD, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“There should be more screening of all patients recovering from a COVID infection for anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and depression, as well as referral to services, including psychotherapy, and medication as needed,” said Dr. Martins, who, along with colleagues, uncovered a high rate of these symptoms in patients who had the disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an enormous social, emotional, and public health toll. It has disrupted lives and caused stress, fear, and uncertainty about loss of health and income, not to mention forced isolation.

In addition, a significant number of patients who contract COVID-19 continue to have symptoms after the acute phase of the illness. This post-COVID, or “long-haul,” syndrome isn’t well defined; experts cite a range of symptoms that persist for weeks or months.

These ongoing symptoms can include cough, fatigue, and chronic pain, as well as psychiatric complaints. As reported by this news organization, an observational study of more than 230,000 U.S. patient health records revealed that one in three COVID-19 survivors received a psychiatric or neurologic diagnosis within 6 months of contracting the virus.

The most common psychiatric diagnoses were anxiety disorders, mood disorders, substance misuse disorders, and insomnia.
 

Significant symptoms even in mild cases

Another study showed that even those with mild COVID-19 may experience psychiatric symptoms independently of previous psychiatric diagnoses. Results revealed that 26% of the sample of almost 900 patients reported depression, 22% reported anxiety, and 17% reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress 2 months after testing positive for the virus. This finding is important because the majority of individuals who contract COVID-19 have a mild case.

“We saw very high levels of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms in people who had mild disease,” study investigator João Mauricio Castaldelli-Maia, MD, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of epidemiology, Columbia University, said in an interview.

He attributed these symptoms in part to long periods of isolation, even from relatives in the same household, in cramped spaces typical of large cities such as São Paulo.

Social isolation can have a huge impact on persons who depend on social connections and relationships, Vivian Pender, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical professor of psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“The fact that we have not been able to see our colleagues, our friends, our family, and in the case of psychiatrists, even our patients has taken a toll on everyone, and that leads to more stress, more anxiety,” she said.

National surveys show that psychiatric symptoms occur after acute COVID. One survey revealed that over 50% of 3,900 respondents who had COVID reported having at least moderate symptoms of major depression.
 

Unique depression subtype?

Another survey, slated for publication later this year, shows that among patients who have had COVID, risk factors for depression as well as certain symptoms of depression differ somewhat from those typical of major depressive disorder, lead investigator Roy Perlis, MD, professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

This might suggest a neurobiological element. Researchers are speculating as to whether lingering psychiatric problems that occur after having COVID are linked to the psychosocial impact of the disease or to pathological processes, such as inflammation, that affect the brain.

Although rates of post-COVID psychiatric symptoms vary from study to study, “they seem to be pretty enduring,” noted Faith Gunning, PhD, vice chair of research, department of psychology, Weill Cornell Medicine, who specializes in clinical neuropsychology.

“So they’re not just a brief response” to getting sick, a fact that points to the possible need for treatment, she told this news organization. “In some of the work that’s starting to emerge, it does appear that the symptoms persist, at least for a relatively large subset of individuals.”

Although depression typically affects twice as many women as men, these new surveys show that, after COVID, “that difference is not so distinct,” said Dr. Gunning.

It’s unclear why this is, but it could be cause by financial stresses that may affect men to a greater extent, she added. “There is so much we’re still learning.”
 

Increased suicide risk?

Other researchers, including Leo Sher, MD, professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and director of inpatient psychiatry, James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in New York, are concerned that higher rates of psychiatric symptoms among patients with long-haul COVID raise the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior.

Studies of suicidality in COVID-19 survivors “are urgently needed,” said Dr. Sher in an article published in the Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians.

“We need to study what factors may increase suicide risk among the COVID-19 survivors during and after the recovery. We also need to investigate whether there is a long-term increased suicide risk among COVID-19 survivors,” Dr. Sher said.

COVID-19 is not unique among viral respiratory diseases in being associated with long-term mental health problems. Research shows that survivors of the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome experienced increased psychological distress that persisted for at least a year, as did patients who in 2015 had Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV).

Some experts believe clinicians should screen patients for mental health symptoms after the acute phase of COVID and offer early and prolonged care.

“Early mental health intervention such as psychotherapy and supportive groups could play an important role in preventing incident mental health problems for post-COVID sufferers,” said Dr. Castaldelli-Maia.

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

Despite a small drop in income, slightly more dermatologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than in 2019, according to survey results from Medscape.

The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).

“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”

For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.

Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.

Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.

Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.

One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Despite a small drop in income, slightly more dermatologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than in 2019, according to survey results from Medscape.

The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).

“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”

For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.

Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.

Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.

Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.

One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Despite a small drop in income, slightly more dermatologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than in 2019, according to survey results from Medscape.

The numbers look like this: Average income was $394,000 in 2020, compared with $411,000 in 2019 – a drop of 4.1% – but 67% of dermatologists said they felt fairly compensated in 2020, compared with 65% in 2019, Medscape said in its 2021 Dermatologist Compensation Report. Only 3 of the 29 participating specialties had a more favorable reaction: oncology (79%), psychiatry (69%), and plastic surgery (68%).

“Most dermatologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the annual report, while also noting that 45% of dermatologist respondents “said that the pandemic did not cause them financial or practice-related harm.”

For the dermatologists who did see such negative effects, just over half (54%) said that they expect income to return to pre–COVID-19 levels in the next year, while 31% believe it will take 2-3 years and 12% said that their income would never return to normal. For all specialists included in the survey, the corresponding numbers were 42%, 41%, and 12%, with primary care physicians coming in at 39%, 43%, and 10%, the report said.

Among all participating specialties, plastic surgeons reported the highest average earnings at $526,000, with orthopedists ($511,000) and cardiologists ($459,000) next. Pediatricians had not just the lowest average income ($221,000) for 2020, but also the largest decline in patients seen per week (18%), according to the results of the survey, which was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and involved 17,903 physicians.

Dermatologists also experienced a larger-than-average decline (16%) in patient traffic – only the pediatricians had a larger drop – as their weekly patient count fell from 141 before the pandemic to the current 119. Despite that drop, though, average hours worked per week remained at 45, as time is now being spent on office safety protocols and other issues involving COVID-19, Medscape pointed out.

Dermatologists also spent more time on paperwork and administration in 2020 than in 2019: 14.6 hours per week versus 13.2 hours. Their 2020 average, however, was still lower than that of all physicians, 16.3 hours, and much lower than that of the infectious disease physicians, who topped the survey with an average of 24.2 hours per week, the Medscape data show.

One area where dermatologists did lead the survey was in their commitment to their specialty: 96% said they would choose dermatology again if given the chance, which was equaled by orthopedics and oncology, Medscape said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Health workers already know that indoor air quality can be as important to human health as clean water and uncontaminated food. But before the COVID-19 pandemic, its importance in the prevention of respiratory illnesses outside of health circles was only whispered about.

Now, a team of nearly 40 scientists from 14 countries is calling for “a paradigm shift,” so that improvements in indoor air quality are viewed as essential to curb respiratory infections.

Most countries do not have indoor air-quality standards, the scientists point out in their recent report, and those that do often fall short in scope and enforcement.

“We expect everywhere in the world to have clean water flowing from our taps. In most parts of the developed world, it is happening and we take it completely for granted,” said lead investigator Lidia Morawska, PhD, of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia.

But bacteria and viruses can circulate freely in the air, and “no one thinks about this, whatsoever, apart from health care facilities,” she said.

A first step is to recognize the risk posed by airborne pathogens, something not yet universally acknowledged. The investigators also want the World Health Organization to extend its guidelines to cover airborne pathogens, and for ventilation standards to include higher airflow and filtration rates.

Germany has been at the forefront of air-quality measures, Dr. Morawska said. Years ago, she observed a monitor showing the carbon dioxide level and relative humidity in the room where she was attending a meeting. The screen was accompanied by red, yellow, and green signals to communicate risk. Such indicators are also commonly displayed in German schools so teachers know when to open the windows or adjust the ventilation.
 

Monitors show carbon dioxide levels

But this is not yet being done in most other countries, Dr. Morawska said. Levels of carbon dioxide are one measure of indoor air quality, but they serve as a proxy for ventilation, she pointed out. Although the technology is available, sensors that can test a variety of components in a building in real time are not yet affordable.

Dr. Morawska envisions a future where the air quality numbers of the places people frequent are displayed so they know the risk for airborne transmission of respiratory illnesses. And people can begin to expect clean indoor air when they enter a business, office, or entertainment space and request changes when the air quality dips and improvement is needed, she said.

It is a daunting challenge to clean indoor air for several reasons. Air is not containable in the same way water is, which makes it difficult to trace contaminants. And infections transmitted through dirty water and food are usually evident immediately, whereas infections transmitted through airborne pathogens can take days to develop. Plus, the necessary infrastructure changes will be expensive.

However, the initial cost required to change the flow and quality of indoor air might be less than the cost of infections, the scientists pointed out. It is estimated that the global harm caused by COVID-19 alone costs $1 trillion each month.

“In the United States, the yearly cost – direct and indirect – of influenza has been calculated at $11.2 billion. For respiratory infections other than influenza, the yearly cost stood at $40 billion,” the team noted.

“If even half of this was caused by inhalation, we are still talking about massive costs,” said Dr. Morawska.
 

Bigger is not always better

It is tempting to see the solution as increased ventilation, said Ehsan Mousavi, PhD, assistant professor of construction science and management at Clemson (S.C.) University, who studies indoor air quality and ventilation in hospitals.

“We are ventilating the heck out of hospitals,” he said in an interview. But there is much debate about how much ventilation is the right amount. Too much and “you can blow pathogens into an open wound,” he explained. “Bigger is not always better.”

And there is still debate about the best mix of outside and recirculated air. An increase in the intake of outdoor air can refresh indoor air if it is clean, but that depends on where you live, he pointed out.

The mix used in most standard office buildings is 15% outside air and 85% recirculated air, Dr. Mousavi said. Boosting the percentage of outside air increases costs and energy use.

In fact, it can take five times more energy to ventilate hospital spaces than office spaces, he reported.

Engineers searching for clean-air solutions need to know what particulates are in the air and whether they are harmful to humans, but the sensors currently available can’t identify whether a virus is present in real time.

Samples have to be taken to a lab and, “by the time you know a virus was in the space, the moment is gone,” Dr. Mousavi explained.

More research is needed. “We need a reasonable answer that looks at the problem holistically, not just from the infectious disease perspective,” he said.
 

Hydrating indoor air

Research is making it clear that health care environments can play a significant role in patient recovery, according to Stephanie Taylor, MD. Dr. Taylor is president of Building4Health, which she founded to help businesses assess the quality of air in their buildings and find solutions. The company uses an algorithm to arrive at a health assessment score.

Air hydration is the most important aspect to target, she said.

Since the 1980s, research has shown that a relative humidity of 40%-60% is healthy for humans, she said. Currently, in an office building in a winter climate, the humidity level is more like 20%.

Canada is the first country to officially recommend the 40%-60% range for senior citizen centers and residential homes.

“Properly hydrated air supports our immune system and prevents skin problems and respiratory problems. It also inactivates many bacteria and viruses,” Dr. Taylor explained. Inhaling dry air compromises the ability of the body to restrict influenza virus infection, researchers showed in a 2019 study.

In the case of COVID-19, as virus particles attach to water molecules, they get bigger and heavier and eventually drop out of the breathing zone and onto surfaces where they can be wiped away, she explained.

But when the particles “are very small – like 5 microns in diameter – and you inhale them, they can lodge deep in the lungs,” she said.

In properly hydrated air, particles will be larger – about 10-20 microns when they attach to the water vapor – so they will get stuck in the nose or the back of the throat, where they can be washed away by mucous and not travel to the lungs.

“Indoor air metrics” can support our health or contribute to disease, “not just over time, but quickly, within minutes or hours,” she said.

No one expects the world’s building stock to suddenly upgrade to the ideal air quality. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move in that direction,” Dr. Taylor said. Changes can start small and gradually increase.
 

New research targets indoor air

Humidity is one of the key areas for current research, said Karl Rockne, PhD, director of the environmental engineering program at the National Science Foundation.

“When a virus comes out, it’s not just a naked virus, which is exceptionally small. It’s a virus encapsulated in liquid. And that’s why the humidity is so key. The degree of humidity can determine how fast the water evaporates from the particle,” he said in an interview.

In the wake of COVID-19, his institution is funding more cross-disciplinary research in biology, building science, architecture, and physics, he pointed out.

One such effort involved the development of a sensor that can capture live COVID-19 virus. This so-called “smoking gun,” which proved that the virus can spread through the air, took the combined expertise of professionals in medicine, engineering, and several other disciplines.

Currently, investigators are examining indoor air quality and water supplies in offices that have been left empty during the pandemic, and the effect they will have on human health. And others are looking at the way outside air quality affects indoor air quality, particularly where outdoor air quality is poor, such as in areas experiencing wildfires.

So will COVID-19 be the catalyst that finally drives changes to building design, regulation, and public expectations of air quality in the spaces where we spend close to 90% of our time?

“If not COVID, what else? It affected every country, every sector,” Dr. Morawska said. “There’s enough momentum now to do something about this. And enough realization there is a problem.”
 

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

Fewer doctors are opting to run their own small private practices, with more seeking jobs in hospitals or larger medical groups, according to a new report.

These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.

The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.

This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.

Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.

The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.

There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.

The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.

The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.

“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
 

Challenging environment

It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”

Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.

Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.

“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.

Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.

On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.

“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “

UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
 

Attractions of larger groups

Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.

The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.

Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.

AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.

Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model

“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”

For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.

Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.

In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.

The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.

In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.

“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.

For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.

Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.

“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health

Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”

AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
 

‘Dramatic restructuring’

The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”

The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.

The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”

The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
 

Private equity ‘roll-ups’

On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.

In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)

Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.

“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.

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

Fewer doctors are opting to run their own small private practices, with more seeking jobs in hospitals or larger medical groups, according to a new report.

These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.

The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.

This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.

Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.

The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.

There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.

The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.

The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.

“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
 

Challenging environment

It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”

Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.

Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.

“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.

Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.

On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.

“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “

UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
 

Attractions of larger groups

Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.

The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.

Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.

AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.

Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model

“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”

For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.

Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.

In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.

The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.

In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.

“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.

For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.

Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.

“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health

Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”

AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
 

‘Dramatic restructuring’

The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”

The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.

The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”

The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
 

Private equity ‘roll-ups’

On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.

In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)

Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.

“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.

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

Fewer doctors are opting to run their own small private practices, with more seeking jobs in hospitals or larger medical groups, according to a new report.

These patterns likely reflect broader trends toward consolidation in health care, with both insurance companies and hospitals also having grown in size in recent years.

The latest biennial analysis of doctors’ practices by the American Medical Association showed an acceleration of a trend away from private practice, defined as a practice wholly owned by physicians. The 2020 results found less than half – 49.1 % – of doctors involved in patient care worked in a private practice, the AMA said in a report released in May 2021.

This marked the first time private practice was not the dominant approach since the AMA analysis began in 2012. What’s more, the trend appears to be gaining steam, with a drop of almost 5 percentage points from 54.0% in private practice in 2018. The percent of doctors in private practice declined at a slower rate in previous AMA surveys, slipping to 55.8% in 2016 from 56.8% in 2018 and 60.1% in 2012.

Employment and ownership structures have become so varied that no single approach or size of organization “can or should be considered the typical physician practice,” the report noted.

The AMA, for example, added to its 2020 benchmark survey an option to identify private equity organizations as employers. The survey found 4% of doctors involved in patient care worked in practices owned by these kinds of firms. Other options include practices wholly or jointly owned by hospital and health systems and insurers, as well as direct employment and contracting.

There are signs that the shift away from smaller private practices will continue, with younger doctors appearing more likely to seek employment.

The survey found 42% of doctors ages 55 and older were employed by someone else, compared with 51.2% of doctors ages 40-54 and 70% of physicians under the age of 40.

The AMA surveyed 3,500 U.S. doctors through the 2020 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The survey was conducted from September to October 2020, roughly 6 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may not reflect its full impact.

“Physician practices were hit hard by the economic impact of the early pandemic as patient volume and revenues shrank while medical supply expenses spiked. The impact of these economic forces on physician practice arrangements is ongoing and may not be fully realized for some time,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement.

In a survey released in 2020 by McKinsey & Company, 53% of independent doctors reported that they were worried about their practices surviving the stresses of the pandemic, this news organization reported.
 

Challenging environment

It’s not just money leading to the shift away from private practice, according to a 2020 report from the American Hospital Association, titled “Evolving Physician-Practice Ownership Models.”

Many recent graduates of medical schools have significant debt and are more likely to opt for employment, which offers more financial stability and work-life balance, the report said.

Doctors also need to keep up with expectations of their patients that have been shaped by advances in other sectors, like banking, the AHA noted. People are used to working on their own schedules, and want to make appointments through apps, get test results rapidly and on their mobile devices, and communicate with their providers virtually.

“It is challenging to meet these expectations and make the necessary technology investments as a solo or small group practice,” the AHA report said.

Hospitals face competition for doctors from insurers, which have been looking in some cases to directly employ more physicians, the AHA also noted. The report cites insurance giant UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit as the most visible example of this trend.

On a January call about corporate earnings, David Wichmann, then chief executive of UnitedHealth, spoke about the firm’s “aim to reinvent health care delivery,” including efforts to have its own primary and multispecialty care practices.

“OptumCare entered 2021 with over 50,000 physicians and 1,400 clinics,” Mr. Wichmann said. “Over the course of this year, we expect to grow our employed and affiliated physicians by at least 10,000. This work of building local physician-led systems of care continues to be central to our mission. “

UnitedHealth’s new CEO is Andrew Witty, who had led the Optum unit.
 

Attractions of larger groups

Older doctors – those 55 years and up – were significantly more likely to work in small practices than those younger than 40, the 2020 survey found. Results showed 40.9% of doctors under 40 worked in practices of 10 or fewer colleagues, compared with 61.4% of those age 55 and older.

The large difference between age groups suggests that attrition is one reason for the shift in practice size. Retiring doctors who leave small practices are not being replaced on a one-for-one basis by younger doctors, AMA said. The same reason also appears to be a factor in the shift in practice ownership to larger systems.

Doctors in larger group practices can count on a stable business model, with a better ability to survive disruptive market trends, including those of a more extreme nature, like COVID-19, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA Consulting.

AMGA Consulting is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMGA, formerly called American Medical Group Association. Its more than 400 members include well-known multispecialty groups and health care systems such as the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger, the Permanente Medical Group, and Intermountain Healthcare as well as many smaller physician practices.

Mr. Horton, who holds a master’s degree in health administration, said some doctors may want to participate in alternative payment programs offered by insurers, who are seeking to shift away from the fee-for-service model

“Larger organizations can dedicate more resources to continuous quality improvement,” Mr. Horton said. “This is especially important for physicians who are taking on risk-based contracts, as quality can directly impact how much they earn.”

For one oncologist, it was turning to alternative payment methods that helped him keep his private practice afloat.

Kashyap Patel, MD, chief executive of the Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates in Rock Hill, S.C., said he maintained the independence of his practice amid pressure from a large health system, which had been buying medical groups in the area. That began to interfere with referrals of patients from other doctors, which are key for cancer specialists, said Dr. Patel, who also is president of the Community Oncology Alliance.

In response, Dr. Patel worked with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina on an arrangement where his practice sought certifications from the National Committee for Quality Assurance to get better rates.

The effort has allowed Dr. Patel’s clinic to focus more on preventing hospitalizations and visits to the emergency room he said.

In Dr. Patel’s view, his patients benefit from his efforts to remain in independent practice. A switch to ownership by a large health care organization would have put them at risk for higher medical bills, jeopardizing their access to treatment, he said. The reason? Hospitals can charge more for services provided by doctors they employ.

“Nothing would change. I would be the same. The building would be the same, but the cost would go up,” Dr. Patel said.

For its part, the AHA has repeatedly challenged arguments that acquisitions and mergers result in higher costs for patients.

Instead, the AHA has raised alarms about consolidation of health insurers, a concern it shares with AMA. In a 2020 report examining competition among insurers, AMA noted doctors working in small practices can be put at a disadvantage if mergers and acquisitions leave an insurer with too much market power.

“Under antitrust law, independent physicians cannot negotiate collectively with health

Insurers,” the AMA said in the report. “This imbalance in relative size leaves most physicians with a weak bargaining position relative to commercial payers.”

AMA’s research on the effects of insurers’ wielding significant market clout has been used in effort to thwart mergers in this industry.
 

‘Dramatic restructuring’

The Federal Trade Commission also has taken note of the trends discussed in the new AMA report, saying that “U.S. physician markets are undergoing a dramatic restructuring.”

The FTC in January announced a study of the impact of the consolidation of doctors groups and health care facilities. FTC is seeking data for inpatient, outpatient, and doctors services in 15 states from 2015 through 2020. To gather this data, the commission has issued orders to six major insurers – Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare.

The FTC is concerned that acquired practices may have to alter their referral patterns to favor their affiliated hospital system over competing hospital systems. But FTC staff also said it might be that these acquisitions result in efficiencies, such as enhanced coordination of care between doctors and hospitals “that outweigh potential competitive harms.”

The research project will likely take several years to complete because of its scope, the FTC said. For that reason, the FTC said its Bureau of Economics will release a series of research papers examining different aspects of this inquiry rather than a single paper containing all of the analyses.
 

Private equity ‘roll-ups’

On the day the FTC announced the study of the impact of doctors groups, one of the panel’s commissioners argued for a closer look at how private equity firms make their purchases.

In a Jan. 15 tweet, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said his agency needs to challenge their “roll-ups of small physician practices” as well as clinics and labs. This is a practice of using a series of acquisitions too small to trigger the federal threshold for a serious look from the FTC and Department of Justice. (The threshold for 2021 stands around the $92 million mark. This benchmark is known as Hart-Scott-Rodino notification after a 1976 law that set a reporting standard.)

Mr. Chopra attached to his Jan. 15 tweet a 2020 statement in which he called for stepped-up scrutiny of private-equity firms’ acquisitions of doctors’ practices. Mr. Chopra noted that private-equity firms have been buying practices focused on anesthesiology and emergency medicine, fields which triggered consumer complaints about surprise billing for emergency care.

“Given trends in today’s markets, it is critical that the FTC find new ways to ensure the agency has a rigorous, data-driven approach to market monitoring and enforcement,” Mr. Chopra wrote.

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.

RichLegg/E+

That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.

Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.

Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.

Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.

“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”

The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.

But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”

Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”

Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.

Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.

And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.

Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.

Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.

But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.

Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.

She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.

“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.

Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.

In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”

In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.

Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.

In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”

To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.

To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.

Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.

With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.

Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.

“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.

In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.

“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.

Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. About 41% of adults were suffering from anxiety or depression in January, compared with about 11% 2 years before, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.

“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.

After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.

Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.

“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”

KHN  (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at  KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.

RichLegg/E+

That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.

Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.

Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.

Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.

“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”

The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.

But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”

Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”

Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.

Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.

And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.

Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.

Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.

But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.

Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.

She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.

“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.

Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.

In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”

In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.

Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.

In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”

To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.

To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.

Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.

With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.

Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.

“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.

In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.

“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.

Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. About 41% of adults were suffering from anxiety or depression in January, compared with about 11% 2 years before, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.

“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.

After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.

Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.

“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”

KHN  (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at  KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.

RichLegg/E+

That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.

Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.

Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.

Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.

“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”

The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.

But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”

Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”

Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.

Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.

And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.

Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.

Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.

But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.

Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.

She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.

“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.

Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.

In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”

In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.

Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.

In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”

To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.

To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.

Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.

With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.

Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.

“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.

In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.

“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.

Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. About 41% of adults were suffering from anxiety or depression in January, compared with about 11% 2 years before, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.

“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.

After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.

Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.

“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”

KHN  (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at  KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Look ma, I’m writing with no hands

Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.

In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.

Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.

©Thinkstock

Chicken noodle salmonella

Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.

As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.

In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.

JasonJiron/Thinkstock

This kidney research rocks!

When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.

It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?

Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.

Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”

Mayandi Sivaguru

Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?

Oh, you poor naive fool.

To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?

Pogonic/Getty Images

Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.

That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.

“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.

Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.

For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.

Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.

One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.

Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.

Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.

In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.

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

Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.

That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.

“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.

Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.

For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.

Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.

One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.

Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.

Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.

In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.

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

Despite the shutdowns and plummeting patient volumes early in the COVID-19 pandemic, gastroenterologists’ earnings were just 3.1% lower in 2020 than in 2019, according to new survey results from Medscape.

That drop, from $419,000 to $406,000, was larger, however, than the average for all specialists, which slipped just 0.6% in 2020.

“Most gastroenterologists who saw a drop in income cited COVID-19–related issues, such as job loss, fewer hours, and fewer patients,” Keith L. Martin wrote in the 2021 Medscape Gastroenterologist Compensation Report.

Specialties with larger declines than gastroenterology included dermatology (–4%), pediatrics (–5%), and otolaryngology (–9%). Conversely, plastic surgeons saw the largest increases last year, with their average compensation rising 10% over 2019. Oncologists (+7%) and cardiologists (+5%) also did well, the Medscape data show.

For the physicians who did encounter financial hardships, relief came in several forms.

Many turned to “the federal Paycheck Protection Program to help keep themselves afloat; some were able to renegotiate their lease contracts; a large percentage reduced their staff, which reduced their expenses; and those in capitated plans were still getting paid even though they weren’t seeing as many patients,” Michael Belkin, JD, divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins and Associates in Dallas, said in an interview.

One complication on the road to recovery was the furloughs experienced by some gastroenterologists, but work hours for the specialty have largely recovered. The prepandemic average was 53 hours per week, compared with 52 hours for this year’s gastroenterologist respondents, who represented about 2% of the 17,903 Medscape member physicians who completed the survey.

Among the gastroenterologists surveyed who did experience negative financial or practice-related effects from the pandemic, about one-third estimated that it would take 2-3 years for their income to return to the pre-COVID level, and 14% believe that it will never return to those levels. It is worth noting, however, that 45% of physicians overall reported no such harms last year.

Despite the drop in their incomes last year, more gastroenterologists said that they felt fairly compensated in 2020 than indicated as such in 2019 (55% vs. 52%). This year’s higher figure, though, is on the low end of the scale: of the 29 specialties included, only 4 were lower, and 19 were higher. Five others were the same, according to Medscape’s findings.

In other matters covered by the survey, gastroenterologists found themselves closer to the top. When asked if they would choose medicine again, 81% said yes. Only 8 of the 29 specialties were higher; 93% of gastroenterologists said they would choose gastroenterology again. Only four specialties were higher.

The survey was conducted from Oct. 6, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021, and had a sampling error of ±0.73%. The salary figures were calculated using data for full-time physicians only.

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