Feature

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
 

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

Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW^®  meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
 

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

Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW^®  meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.

As most 2020 medical conferences have, one by one, been canceled or rescheduled as virtual meetings in the time of a pandemic, some physicians and other healthcare professionals are wondering if this is the year that will change the scene forever.

Amid the choruses of resignation (“Unfortunately, it’s the right thing to do.”) and optimism (“See you next year!”), there have been plenty of voices describing another broad sentiment – that all was not well with medical meetings even before the coronavirus.

One dominant criticism is that there are too many meetings.

Indeed, there are many, many meetings. During 2005-2015, there were more than 30,000 medical meetings in the United States, according to a report from the Healthcare Convention and Exhibitors Association.

Most of those are of little value, tweeted Dhruv Khullar, MD, an internist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York (@DhruvKhullar): “One possible consequence of cancelling so many meetings due to #COVID19 is that we realize we probably don’t need most of them.”

The tweet was liked 1.9K times, which is high for a medical post. Comments were mostly in agreement, with some skepticism.

Michaela West, MD, a surgeon at North Memorial Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, responded (@MichaelaWst): “Agree. COVID-19 may forever change our perspective regarding medical professional meetings.”

Nwando Olayiwola, MD, chair of family medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, strongly agreed (@DrNwando): “This is the tweet I wish I tweeted.”

However, Kelly Swords, MD, MPH, urologist, University of California, San Diego, in a dissenting opinion, stated the obvious (@k_dagger): “Except there is no substitute for human interaction.”
 

Worth the Effort?

The cancellation of medical meetings has given those who regularly attend an opportunity to reassess their value and to question the worth of the effort involved in attending in person.

David Steensma, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston, (@DavidSteensma) tweeted that he would like to scale back: “The present crisis is an opportunity to reassess what is actually necessary and rebalance [in terms of meetings].”

Travel to meetings is often unpleasant, said others.

Chris Palatucci, life sciences executive recruiter, Coulter Partners, Boston, tweeted (@LifeSciRcruitr): “I will die a happy man if I never get on another plane. Glorified bus travel.” He also believes that once the coronavirus crisis is over, its “silver lining” will be the realization that “40% of all meetings are unnecessary.”

Many professionals have welcomed the announcements that major conferences have been canceled and will be conducted virtually.

The latest change is from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), whose annual meeting was to be held in Chicago at the end of May but will now be held online.

Virtual ASCO will be more manageable – and comfy, said Fumiko Ladd Chino, MD, radiation oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

She (@fumikochino) explained why in a recent tweet: “1) I will be finally able to see ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS I wanted to see instead of wandering around feeling overwhelmed. 2) I will be able to FOCUS on the presentations and not searching for a power outlet. 3) PAJAMAS.”

Virtual meetings already beat real meetings, added Adriana Scheliga, MD, hematologist-oncologist, Brazilian National Cancer Institute (@linfopedia): “I’ve been saying this for a while. For me the best ASCO Meetings, for example, are the ‘virtual meetings!’ ”

However, meetings in place are also very much about professional community and mutual support, reminds Susan E. Sedory, MA, executive director, Society of Interventional Radiology, which canceled its meeting March 6 in a multifaceted process.
 

Is This the Time to Evaluate Meetings?

Coming up soon is the first major conference to go virtual after being canceled – the American College of Cardiology (ACC), which has been one of the top 20 largest meetings in the United States by attendance.

This meeting, which was to have taken place in Chicago on March 28–30, occurred online on those days. The ACC said it would stream all “live” sessions on demand and provide access to additional videos, abstracts, and slides for at least 90 days after the meeting. And it will be free to anyone with an Internet connection.

Medical meetings in distant locales may bounce back, as they have grown into a very big business. ASCO is illustrative.

The group’s first scientific annual meeting was held in 1965 in Philadelphia, with about 70 members and invited guests in attendance. Fast-forward more than 50 years later to 2019: There were 42,500 attendees, a 4.4% increase from 2018. Notably, the top countries in attendance in 2019 were the United States and China.

Not everyone is happy that canceled meetings are being held online in the middle of a pandemic.

“In a COVID-19 world, the brain cannot focus on nonviral topics,” said commentator John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., in a regular column.

The virtual ACC meeting should be canceled or delayed – to mirror what is happening in the world, he argued. “In hospitals, we have postponed the elective to make room for the coming surge. Shouldn’t ACC do the same? After the crisis passes, we can have a virtual meeting with a proper discussion of the science,” he wrote.

But #MedTwitter, with its collective constructive criticism of medical meetings, is perhaps proof that the brain can function – and arrive at clarity – when under pandemic duress.

“Am I the only one experiencing a certain relief at the cancellation of multiple trips and meetings, and vowing to let this revelation affect my decision making in the future,” tweeted Steven Joffe, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (@Steve Joffe).

Louise Perkins King, MD, a bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, responded to Joffe. Hoping not to “belittle” the suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, she (@louise_p_king) addressed her health care colleagues: “... there is potential for us all to learn what is essential travel and burden and what is not from this. I hope it leads to lasting change.”
 

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

Editor’s note: For information on the impending virtual DDW^®  meeting, please go to https://ddw.org/attendee-planning/covid-19-update/.

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

aotto@mdedge.com

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

aotto@mdedge.com

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.

Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.

Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.

In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.

Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.

ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.

The haze of battle

Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.

Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.

Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.

Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.

Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”

His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
 

A moving target

Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.

The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.

Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).

Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.

Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.

To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.

Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.

aotto@mdedge.com

This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.

A handful of specialties – including family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, and other primary care specialties – are calling for targeted and urgent relief payments from the federal government, saying that they have been left out of distributions aimed at alleviating the financial fallout associated with the novel coronavirus.

The federal government has already distributed about $150 billion – through direct payments and advances on reimbursement – to clinicians, but, to date, the money has only been given to providers who bill Medicare, and not even all of those individuals have received payments.

“It is critical that frontline physicians who may not participate in Medicare fee-for-service, in whole or in part, including obstetrician/gynecologists, pediatricians, and family physicians, have the resources they need to continue providing essential health care to patients amid the pandemic and in the months to come,” said the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a letter to Health & Human Services (Secretary Alex Azar.

In particular, the organizations are concerned that no money has been distributed or earmarked for clinicians who serve Medicaid recipients.

“The organizations that signed that letter are the primary providers of care to the Medicaid population,” Shawn Martin, senior VP for the AAFP, said in an interview. That’s true even for family physicians.

“Typically, in an average family medicine practice, their Medicaid panel size is equal to if not greater than the Medicare panel size,” he said.

On April 23, Mr. Azar said HHS was working on a distribution plan for providers who only take Medicaid, as well as for dentists and skilled nursing facilities. An HHS spokesperson confirmed that the agency still intends to provide money to those groups of providers and that the agency is committed to distributing funds quickly and with transparency.

Mr. Azar had also announced that the government would soon start distributing $20 billion in payments to Medicare providers, on top of the $30 billion that had already been handed out to clinicians on April 10 and 17.

That $50 billion came from the COVID-19–related $100 billion Provider Relief Fund, which was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, signed into law on March 27.

Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had distributed some $100 billion to providers who participated in Medicare Part A or B through the Medicare Advance Payment program, which is a deferred loan. The agency brought that program to a halt on April 27.

An additional $75 billion will now be available through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) as part of the third congressional COVID relief package, signed into law on April 24.

Mr. Martin said that the AAFP and other physician organizations have been talking with HHS about how to distribute money from that new pool of funds. “There’s been a lot of progress, but there hasn’t been any action,” he said, adding that the purpose of the joint letter to HHS “is to say it’s time for action.”
 

COVID-19 damage

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG noted in the letter the damage that’s being inflicted by COVID-19. They cited data that show a 50% decline in measles, mumps, and rubella shots, a 42% drop in diphtheria and whooping cough vaccinations, and a 73% decline in human papillomavirus shots. The groups also noted a rise in child abuse injuries that are being seen in EDs and the potential for a worsening of the maternal mortality crisis in the United States.

Primary care physicians are also the go-to doctors for upper respiratory infections, noted the groups in the letter.

“Put simply, our physician members need to be able to keep their doors open and continue treating patients,” said the groups.

A study by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company, found that ambulatory practice visits had declined by at least half since early February, with a 71% drop in visits by 7- to 17-year-olds and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Research conducted by the Physicians Foundation and Merritt Hawkins shows that 21% of 842 physicians who responded to an early April survey said they’d been furloughed or been given a pay cut. That number rose to 30% among doctors who are not treating COVID-19 patients.

Although the majority in the survey (66%) said they planned to keep practicing in the same manner during the pandemic, 32% said they planned to change practices, opt out of patient care roles, close their practices temporarily, or retire. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.5%.
 

Internists seek consideration, too

The American College of Physicians also has urged HHS to give special consideration to its members. The group wrote to Mr. Azar on April 28, recommending that payments from the new $75 billion PHSSEF be prioritized for primary care, as well as for smaller practices, those that provide care in underserved areas, and internal medicine subspecialty practices.

“Internal medicine specialists and other primary care physicians have an essential role in delivering primary, preventive, and comprehensive care not only to patients with symptoms or diagnoses of COVID-19, but also to patients with other underlying medical conditions, including conditions like heart disease and diabetes that put them at greater risk of mortality from COVID-19,” wrote ACP President Jacqueline Fincher, MD, MACP.

ACP said the government could pay physicians on the basis of the amount of additional expenses incurred that were related to COVID-19, such as extra staffing or temporary relocation of their place of residence to prevent exposing family members to the virus. Pay should also be based on the percentage of revenue losses from all payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers, Dr. Fincher said in the letter.

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG also had a suggestion for distributing payments to non-Medicare providers. “Given that most women’s health, pediatric, and family practices have received less financial relief to date, we recommend that HHS provide these practices with a larger proportion of funds relative to their reported revenue than is provided on average across specialties,” they wrote.

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

A handful of specialties – including family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, and other primary care specialties – are calling for targeted and urgent relief payments from the federal government, saying that they have been left out of distributions aimed at alleviating the financial fallout associated with the novel coronavirus.

The federal government has already distributed about $150 billion – through direct payments and advances on reimbursement – to clinicians, but, to date, the money has only been given to providers who bill Medicare, and not even all of those individuals have received payments.

“It is critical that frontline physicians who may not participate in Medicare fee-for-service, in whole or in part, including obstetrician/gynecologists, pediatricians, and family physicians, have the resources they need to continue providing essential health care to patients amid the pandemic and in the months to come,” said the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a letter to Health & Human Services (Secretary Alex Azar.

In particular, the organizations are concerned that no money has been distributed or earmarked for clinicians who serve Medicaid recipients.

“The organizations that signed that letter are the primary providers of care to the Medicaid population,” Shawn Martin, senior VP for the AAFP, said in an interview. That’s true even for family physicians.

“Typically, in an average family medicine practice, their Medicaid panel size is equal to if not greater than the Medicare panel size,” he said.

On April 23, Mr. Azar said HHS was working on a distribution plan for providers who only take Medicaid, as well as for dentists and skilled nursing facilities. An HHS spokesperson confirmed that the agency still intends to provide money to those groups of providers and that the agency is committed to distributing funds quickly and with transparency.

Mr. Azar had also announced that the government would soon start distributing $20 billion in payments to Medicare providers, on top of the $30 billion that had already been handed out to clinicians on April 10 and 17.

That $50 billion came from the COVID-19–related $100 billion Provider Relief Fund, which was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, signed into law on March 27.

Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had distributed some $100 billion to providers who participated in Medicare Part A or B through the Medicare Advance Payment program, which is a deferred loan. The agency brought that program to a halt on April 27.

An additional $75 billion will now be available through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) as part of the third congressional COVID relief package, signed into law on April 24.

Mr. Martin said that the AAFP and other physician organizations have been talking with HHS about how to distribute money from that new pool of funds. “There’s been a lot of progress, but there hasn’t been any action,” he said, adding that the purpose of the joint letter to HHS “is to say it’s time for action.”
 

COVID-19 damage

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG noted in the letter the damage that’s being inflicted by COVID-19. They cited data that show a 50% decline in measles, mumps, and rubella shots, a 42% drop in diphtheria and whooping cough vaccinations, and a 73% decline in human papillomavirus shots. The groups also noted a rise in child abuse injuries that are being seen in EDs and the potential for a worsening of the maternal mortality crisis in the United States.

Primary care physicians are also the go-to doctors for upper respiratory infections, noted the groups in the letter.

“Put simply, our physician members need to be able to keep their doors open and continue treating patients,” said the groups.

A study by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company, found that ambulatory practice visits had declined by at least half since early February, with a 71% drop in visits by 7- to 17-year-olds and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Research conducted by the Physicians Foundation and Merritt Hawkins shows that 21% of 842 physicians who responded to an early April survey said they’d been furloughed or been given a pay cut. That number rose to 30% among doctors who are not treating COVID-19 patients.

Although the majority in the survey (66%) said they planned to keep practicing in the same manner during the pandemic, 32% said they planned to change practices, opt out of patient care roles, close their practices temporarily, or retire. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.5%.
 

Internists seek consideration, too

The American College of Physicians also has urged HHS to give special consideration to its members. The group wrote to Mr. Azar on April 28, recommending that payments from the new $75 billion PHSSEF be prioritized for primary care, as well as for smaller practices, those that provide care in underserved areas, and internal medicine subspecialty practices.

“Internal medicine specialists and other primary care physicians have an essential role in delivering primary, preventive, and comprehensive care not only to patients with symptoms or diagnoses of COVID-19, but also to patients with other underlying medical conditions, including conditions like heart disease and diabetes that put them at greater risk of mortality from COVID-19,” wrote ACP President Jacqueline Fincher, MD, MACP.

ACP said the government could pay physicians on the basis of the amount of additional expenses incurred that were related to COVID-19, such as extra staffing or temporary relocation of their place of residence to prevent exposing family members to the virus. Pay should also be based on the percentage of revenue losses from all payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers, Dr. Fincher said in the letter.

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG also had a suggestion for distributing payments to non-Medicare providers. “Given that most women’s health, pediatric, and family practices have received less financial relief to date, we recommend that HHS provide these practices with a larger proportion of funds relative to their reported revenue than is provided on average across specialties,” they wrote.

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

A handful of specialties – including family medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, and other primary care specialties – are calling for targeted and urgent relief payments from the federal government, saying that they have been left out of distributions aimed at alleviating the financial fallout associated with the novel coronavirus.

The federal government has already distributed about $150 billion – through direct payments and advances on reimbursement – to clinicians, but, to date, the money has only been given to providers who bill Medicare, and not even all of those individuals have received payments.

“It is critical that frontline physicians who may not participate in Medicare fee-for-service, in whole or in part, including obstetrician/gynecologists, pediatricians, and family physicians, have the resources they need to continue providing essential health care to patients amid the pandemic and in the months to come,” said the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a letter to Health & Human Services (Secretary Alex Azar.

In particular, the organizations are concerned that no money has been distributed or earmarked for clinicians who serve Medicaid recipients.

“The organizations that signed that letter are the primary providers of care to the Medicaid population,” Shawn Martin, senior VP for the AAFP, said in an interview. That’s true even for family physicians.

“Typically, in an average family medicine practice, their Medicaid panel size is equal to if not greater than the Medicare panel size,” he said.

On April 23, Mr. Azar said HHS was working on a distribution plan for providers who only take Medicaid, as well as for dentists and skilled nursing facilities. An HHS spokesperson confirmed that the agency still intends to provide money to those groups of providers and that the agency is committed to distributing funds quickly and with transparency.

Mr. Azar had also announced that the government would soon start distributing $20 billion in payments to Medicare providers, on top of the $30 billion that had already been handed out to clinicians on April 10 and 17.

That $50 billion came from the COVID-19–related $100 billion Provider Relief Fund, which was part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, signed into law on March 27.

Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had distributed some $100 billion to providers who participated in Medicare Part A or B through the Medicare Advance Payment program, which is a deferred loan. The agency brought that program to a halt on April 27.

An additional $75 billion will now be available through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) as part of the third congressional COVID relief package, signed into law on April 24.

Mr. Martin said that the AAFP and other physician organizations have been talking with HHS about how to distribute money from that new pool of funds. “There’s been a lot of progress, but there hasn’t been any action,” he said, adding that the purpose of the joint letter to HHS “is to say it’s time for action.”
 

COVID-19 damage

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG noted in the letter the damage that’s being inflicted by COVID-19. They cited data that show a 50% decline in measles, mumps, and rubella shots, a 42% drop in diphtheria and whooping cough vaccinations, and a 73% decline in human papillomavirus shots. The groups also noted a rise in child abuse injuries that are being seen in EDs and the potential for a worsening of the maternal mortality crisis in the United States.

Primary care physicians are also the go-to doctors for upper respiratory infections, noted the groups in the letter.

“Put simply, our physician members need to be able to keep their doors open and continue treating patients,” said the groups.

A study by Harvard University and Phreesia, a health care technology company, found that ambulatory practice visits had declined by at least half since early February, with a 71% drop in visits by 7- to 17-year-olds and a 59% decline in visits by neonates, infants, and toddlers (up to age 6). Overall, pediatric practices experienced a 62% drop-off in visits.

Research conducted by the Physicians Foundation and Merritt Hawkins shows that 21% of 842 physicians who responded to an early April survey said they’d been furloughed or been given a pay cut. That number rose to 30% among doctors who are not treating COVID-19 patients.

Although the majority in the survey (66%) said they planned to keep practicing in the same manner during the pandemic, 32% said they planned to change practices, opt out of patient care roles, close their practices temporarily, or retire. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.5%.
 

Internists seek consideration, too

The American College of Physicians also has urged HHS to give special consideration to its members. The group wrote to Mr. Azar on April 28, recommending that payments from the new $75 billion PHSSEF be prioritized for primary care, as well as for smaller practices, those that provide care in underserved areas, and internal medicine subspecialty practices.

“Internal medicine specialists and other primary care physicians have an essential role in delivering primary, preventive, and comprehensive care not only to patients with symptoms or diagnoses of COVID-19, but also to patients with other underlying medical conditions, including conditions like heart disease and diabetes that put them at greater risk of mortality from COVID-19,” wrote ACP President Jacqueline Fincher, MD, MACP.

ACP said the government could pay physicians on the basis of the amount of additional expenses incurred that were related to COVID-19, such as extra staffing or temporary relocation of their place of residence to prevent exposing family members to the virus. Pay should also be based on the percentage of revenue losses from all payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers, Dr. Fincher said in the letter.

AAFP, AAP, and ACOG also had a suggestion for distributing payments to non-Medicare providers. “Given that most women’s health, pediatric, and family practices have received less financial relief to date, we recommend that HHS provide these practices with a larger proportion of funds relative to their reported revenue than is provided on average across specialties,” they wrote.

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

One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.

The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.

The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.

“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.

The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.

On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”

Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.

Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.

The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.

The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.

“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.

The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.

On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”

Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.

Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.

The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.

On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.

The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.

“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.

The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.

On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”

Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.

Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Employed physicians have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, or have even been terminated. In many cases, these actions violate their contract. How can they fight them?
 

Michael D., MD, a colorectal surgeon employed in a large surgical practice in Georgia, is still trying to make sense of a late-night directive from the practice, received in late March.

The practice had just started seeing a steep decline in appointments because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a hastily arranged group phone call at 11:00 p.m., the CEO told the group what would have to be done.

They would be taking a 50% reduction in salaries, their bonuses for work already done were being withheld, and they would have to use their paid time off (PTO) in order to get their full March salary.

“It’s been over 2 weeks now, and still we’ve seen nothing formalized in writing,” said Dr. D., who asked that his name not be used because he was told that, under no circumstances, should anyone talk to the media.

“They have not told us anything more since then,” he said. “There’s just been a lot of hearsay and speculation.”

Dr. D. has been in touch with employed physicians at other practices, and their experiences run the gamut. One doctor at a large multispecialty group said his salary hadn’t been reduced at all, but a cardiologist was just told he will be laid off in 60 days.

Asking for big sacrifices

As the pandemic has intensified, employed physicians have started to see massive changes in their payment arrangements. They have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, and have even been terminated.

“In my 11 years of work on physician contracts, I have never seen changes as drastic as these,” said Kyle Claussen, a physician contract attorney and CEO of Resolve, a company that advises physicians on their careers. The company is based in Columbia, Mo.

He has heard from more than 100 doctors about these proposed changes in their contracts and related matters. Even graduating residents, he said, are being told that the start dates for their new jobs will be delayed.

In many cases, these actions violate the employed physicians’ contracts, said Ericka Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

“Some employers are acting out of desperation and are not making legally sound decisions,” Ms. Adler said. “It’s especially upsetting when they do not try to even talk to or work with the doctor first.”

Employers making unfounded unilateral changes

Ms. Adler said some employers are simply issuing a letter to all doctors. “It goes something like, ‘Just to let you know, we are cutting compensation effective immediately,’ and this may apply across the board to all doctors,” she said.

“But the problem with letters is that this is a contractual matter,” she said. “The employer needs to renegotiate each doctor’s contract.”

Employers might insist that the unilateral changes are based on terms in the contract, but this is usually unfounded, both lawyers said. A “force majeure” clause in contracts would allow the employer to set aside terms under certain specified emergencies, and the pandemic might be one of them. But Mr. Claussen said force majeure clauses are rare in physician contracts, and Ms. Adler said she has never seen one.

Lacking a force majeure clause, employers may try to turn to a common law doctrine that allows employers to set aside a contract when it is impossible to perform its terms, owing, for example, to “an unexpected intervening event.” But this tactic is also questionable, says Ms. Adler, who also represents the employer’s side of the contract. “This is a very high standard and unlikely to be satisfied,” she said.

Employers are desperate to amend contracts

Lacking a cause to take unilateral action, many employers are desperately trying to amend their physician contracts – the subject of the plaintive emails that employed physicians started receiving in mid-March.

“Doctors are trying to decide how they will react to these documents,” Mr. Claussen said. “If they don’t sign, they run the risk of being terminated.” He is expecting termination letters for some of these doctors to start coming in 2-3 weeks.

In response to these amendments, “doctors want to reach out to their employers and see if something can be negotiated,” he said. “Some employers have been amenable, but others have so far not been.”

Ms. Adler said the amendments typically offer open-ended arrangements favoring the employer. “The document might call for a temporary pay cut until the employer thinks they can restore the old salary, but it is up to the employer to decide when that would be,” she said.

Also, when the employer owes the physician for services already performed, the amendments don’t promise to pay them the full amount owed, she said.

Ms. Adler advises doctors to ask for a provision that restoration of their original salary will occur at a definite point in time, such as 30 days after the organization is back at previous volume. And if the doctor is owed money, the doctor should ask for full payment – and to sweeten that offer, allow the employer to pay the doctor back over a period, she says.

Just in the past month, employers have been pushing for several specific changes in doctors’ employment status. Here are some changes that Mr. Claussen and Ms. Adler have been seeing.
 

Withholding quarterly bonuses

In March, just before quarterly bonus payments were due, employed physicians started getting notices that they would not get the bonus, Mr. Claussen said. This covered work already done, and it amounted to a lot of money because practices were busy then.

“Not paying bonuses is a very big deal because they can make up to 50% of a physician’s total compensation,” Mr. Claussen said. He added that unilaterally withholding those funds, without a change in the contract, is legally questionable.

In addition to these changes on past bonuses, he said employers are now trying to temporarily end bonuses going forward through the contract amendments. “It’s not a good idea to sign this,” he said.
 

Doctors paid on pure production are left in the lurch

As volume falls, some hospitals and practices are shutting down doctors’ offices for all but emergencies, leaving their employed doctors with practically nothing to do. Doctors paid purely on their productivity are devastated by this change because their income virtually goes to zero, Mr. Claussen said.

He said office shutdowns are particularly common for specialists because hospitals have been stopping elective procedures during the pandemic, but they can also happen in primary care, which has seen steep declines in patient volume, too.

Having doctors on pure production means that employers can keep doctors hired without having to pay them, Mr. Claussen said. He has seen some employers try to shift more doctors into pure production through the amended contracts.

But Ms. Adler said having doctors on pure production is actually disadvantageous for employers in the current climate. The employer may end up being owed money because of advance payments they have already made to these doctors, she said.

In any case, both lawyers agreed that doctors on a pure production model are in an untenable situation right now. Ms. Adler said they are not earning money but are still technically at work, so they cannot collect unemployment compensation, which would give them some income.

Forcing doctors to use paid time off

To provide some pay for doctors who have no volume, many employers are forcing these doctors to use up their PTO days, which typically amount to about 4 weeks, Mr. Claussen said. “These doctors have no choice in the matter,” he said.

Furthermore, while on PTO, they are being required to take call. Employers are still obligated to cover call, and there may not be enough doctors still working to fill the call schedule. But making doctors do this work on their time off may be a violation of the contract, Mr. Claussen said.

Terminating physicians

Doctors who have little to do are often put on furlough. This means they don’t get paid but they keep their benefits, Ms. Adler said. The next step, she said, is to lay them off, with the stated intention of rehiring them.

Once laid off, she said, they can get unemployment payments. “Unemployment payments may not be anywhere near what they were earning before, but they are better than not earning anything,” Ms. Adler said.

In some cases, employers are just terminating them and are offering no prospect of rehiring them, she said. Ms. Adler said terminations can be a big problem for doctors. Physicians might have to repay a signing bonus or they might lose their malpractice coverage, forcing them to buy a tail. They could also be subject to a noncompete clause, which would not allow them to practice in the area, she said.

Terminating without cause typically requires 60-90 days’ notice, which both sides might use to negotiate some changes in the contract. But Ms. Adler said some employers are firing doctors with cause, and are using legally questionable reasons to do so.

“In most cases, these employers are grasping at straws,” she said. As a result, she expects many fired doctors will file wrongful termination lawsuits. She thinks employers are better advised to negotiate with the physicians.
 

Delaying start dates for new physicians

Typically, graduating residents and fellows signed with their new employers months ago and are ready to start working on July 1. But some employers are pushing back the start date for several months, Mr. Claussen said.

Mr. Claussen has been helping several clients in this situation. He said these delays are often a clear violation of the employment contract. Most contracts require an amendment to change the start date, he said.

Mr. Claussen said some employers have agreed to a new start date in an amended contract, giving the new physicians a solid date to work with. Not having work can be a real problem for graduating residents, who typically have to start paying off loans.

Now physicians won’t become a new partner

Mr. Claussen said physicians who are up for becoming partner are now being told that the deal is off. With less money coming in, existing partners are not willing to share it with a new partner, and there is no work for a new partner.

“The promise to make them partner is usually a verbal promise, so it is much less likely to be a breach of contract,” he said. “It is frustrating for physicians who were expecting to become partner.”

What can physicians do?

When employers present changes to them, physicians often feel their hands are tied, Ms. Adler said. In these dangerous times, they are expected to make sacrifices to keep the organization from going out of business.

Even if they wanted to file suits against their employer, “they can’t go to court right now because the courts are closed,” Ms. Adler said. “Employers are banking on doctors not doing anything.”

In most cases, however, doctors don’t have to act right away, she said. “Just because you have not reacted to the new situation does not mean you accepted it,” she said. “You can wait months, even years to file a lawsuit, depending on the state and the cause of action.”

Ms. Adler recommended that doctors make it clear that they don’t agree with the changes. An attorney experienced in physician contracts can review the changes being made and the amended contracts being offered.

Thanks to recent federal changes, employers have to have some ways to continue paying physicians, Ms. Adler said. Medical practices with fewer than 500 employees can get loans from the federal government that would not have to be repaid if they met certain stipulations, such as hiring back all the employees they terminate, she said.

Mr. Claussen said physicians should resist the obvious dangers, such as a shift to a pure production salary, denying bonus payments for work already done, and forcing physicians you use up PTO days.

He also suggested persuading employers to postpone rather than eliminate payments. “Some employers have agreed to postpone payments until a date later in 2020 rather than eliminate them,” he said. “The aim is that the organization will be back on its feet at that time.”

Mr. Claussen said he is trying to limit the contract amendments to 1 or 2 months. Because the situation caused by the pandemic is so fluid, “this allows for flexibility,” he said. “We can revisit the situation and come up with different changes.”

Ms. Adler doubts employers would accept short-term changes with a definite end date because such changes would not be in the employer’s interest. But Mr. Claussen said one employer has agreed to reevaluate its contracts in June.

Both lawyers agreed that many employers are trying to work with their physicians. “In 90% of the cases I have seen, both sides cooperate,” Ms. Adler said. “Because of the situation, people are being much more conciliatory than they would have been.”

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

Employed physicians have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, or have even been terminated. In many cases, these actions violate their contract. How can they fight them?
 

Michael D., MD, a colorectal surgeon employed in a large surgical practice in Georgia, is still trying to make sense of a late-night directive from the practice, received in late March.

The practice had just started seeing a steep decline in appointments because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a hastily arranged group phone call at 11:00 p.m., the CEO told the group what would have to be done.

They would be taking a 50% reduction in salaries, their bonuses for work already done were being withheld, and they would have to use their paid time off (PTO) in order to get their full March salary.

“It’s been over 2 weeks now, and still we’ve seen nothing formalized in writing,” said Dr. D., who asked that his name not be used because he was told that, under no circumstances, should anyone talk to the media.

“They have not told us anything more since then,” he said. “There’s just been a lot of hearsay and speculation.”

Dr. D. has been in touch with employed physicians at other practices, and their experiences run the gamut. One doctor at a large multispecialty group said his salary hadn’t been reduced at all, but a cardiologist was just told he will be laid off in 60 days.

Asking for big sacrifices

As the pandemic has intensified, employed physicians have started to see massive changes in their payment arrangements. They have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, and have even been terminated.

“In my 11 years of work on physician contracts, I have never seen changes as drastic as these,” said Kyle Claussen, a physician contract attorney and CEO of Resolve, a company that advises physicians on their careers. The company is based in Columbia, Mo.

He has heard from more than 100 doctors about these proposed changes in their contracts and related matters. Even graduating residents, he said, are being told that the start dates for their new jobs will be delayed.

In many cases, these actions violate the employed physicians’ contracts, said Ericka Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

“Some employers are acting out of desperation and are not making legally sound decisions,” Ms. Adler said. “It’s especially upsetting when they do not try to even talk to or work with the doctor first.”

Employers making unfounded unilateral changes

Ms. Adler said some employers are simply issuing a letter to all doctors. “It goes something like, ‘Just to let you know, we are cutting compensation effective immediately,’ and this may apply across the board to all doctors,” she said.

“But the problem with letters is that this is a contractual matter,” she said. “The employer needs to renegotiate each doctor’s contract.”

Employers might insist that the unilateral changes are based on terms in the contract, but this is usually unfounded, both lawyers said. A “force majeure” clause in contracts would allow the employer to set aside terms under certain specified emergencies, and the pandemic might be one of them. But Mr. Claussen said force majeure clauses are rare in physician contracts, and Ms. Adler said she has never seen one.

Lacking a force majeure clause, employers may try to turn to a common law doctrine that allows employers to set aside a contract when it is impossible to perform its terms, owing, for example, to “an unexpected intervening event.” But this tactic is also questionable, says Ms. Adler, who also represents the employer’s side of the contract. “This is a very high standard and unlikely to be satisfied,” she said.

Employers are desperate to amend contracts

Lacking a cause to take unilateral action, many employers are desperately trying to amend their physician contracts – the subject of the plaintive emails that employed physicians started receiving in mid-March.

“Doctors are trying to decide how they will react to these documents,” Mr. Claussen said. “If they don’t sign, they run the risk of being terminated.” He is expecting termination letters for some of these doctors to start coming in 2-3 weeks.

In response to these amendments, “doctors want to reach out to their employers and see if something can be negotiated,” he said. “Some employers have been amenable, but others have so far not been.”

Ms. Adler said the amendments typically offer open-ended arrangements favoring the employer. “The document might call for a temporary pay cut until the employer thinks they can restore the old salary, but it is up to the employer to decide when that would be,” she said.

Also, when the employer owes the physician for services already performed, the amendments don’t promise to pay them the full amount owed, she said.

Ms. Adler advises doctors to ask for a provision that restoration of their original salary will occur at a definite point in time, such as 30 days after the organization is back at previous volume. And if the doctor is owed money, the doctor should ask for full payment – and to sweeten that offer, allow the employer to pay the doctor back over a period, she says.

Just in the past month, employers have been pushing for several specific changes in doctors’ employment status. Here are some changes that Mr. Claussen and Ms. Adler have been seeing.
 

Withholding quarterly bonuses

In March, just before quarterly bonus payments were due, employed physicians started getting notices that they would not get the bonus, Mr. Claussen said. This covered work already done, and it amounted to a lot of money because practices were busy then.

“Not paying bonuses is a very big deal because they can make up to 50% of a physician’s total compensation,” Mr. Claussen said. He added that unilaterally withholding those funds, without a change in the contract, is legally questionable.

In addition to these changes on past bonuses, he said employers are now trying to temporarily end bonuses going forward through the contract amendments. “It’s not a good idea to sign this,” he said.
 

Doctors paid on pure production are left in the lurch

As volume falls, some hospitals and practices are shutting down doctors’ offices for all but emergencies, leaving their employed doctors with practically nothing to do. Doctors paid purely on their productivity are devastated by this change because their income virtually goes to zero, Mr. Claussen said.

He said office shutdowns are particularly common for specialists because hospitals have been stopping elective procedures during the pandemic, but they can also happen in primary care, which has seen steep declines in patient volume, too.

Having doctors on pure production means that employers can keep doctors hired without having to pay them, Mr. Claussen said. He has seen some employers try to shift more doctors into pure production through the amended contracts.

But Ms. Adler said having doctors on pure production is actually disadvantageous for employers in the current climate. The employer may end up being owed money because of advance payments they have already made to these doctors, she said.

In any case, both lawyers agreed that doctors on a pure production model are in an untenable situation right now. Ms. Adler said they are not earning money but are still technically at work, so they cannot collect unemployment compensation, which would give them some income.

Forcing doctors to use paid time off

To provide some pay for doctors who have no volume, many employers are forcing these doctors to use up their PTO days, which typically amount to about 4 weeks, Mr. Claussen said. “These doctors have no choice in the matter,” he said.

Furthermore, while on PTO, they are being required to take call. Employers are still obligated to cover call, and there may not be enough doctors still working to fill the call schedule. But making doctors do this work on their time off may be a violation of the contract, Mr. Claussen said.

Terminating physicians

Doctors who have little to do are often put on furlough. This means they don’t get paid but they keep their benefits, Ms. Adler said. The next step, she said, is to lay them off, with the stated intention of rehiring them.

Once laid off, she said, they can get unemployment payments. “Unemployment payments may not be anywhere near what they were earning before, but they are better than not earning anything,” Ms. Adler said.

In some cases, employers are just terminating them and are offering no prospect of rehiring them, she said. Ms. Adler said terminations can be a big problem for doctors. Physicians might have to repay a signing bonus or they might lose their malpractice coverage, forcing them to buy a tail. They could also be subject to a noncompete clause, which would not allow them to practice in the area, she said.

Terminating without cause typically requires 60-90 days’ notice, which both sides might use to negotiate some changes in the contract. But Ms. Adler said some employers are firing doctors with cause, and are using legally questionable reasons to do so.

“In most cases, these employers are grasping at straws,” she said. As a result, she expects many fired doctors will file wrongful termination lawsuits. She thinks employers are better advised to negotiate with the physicians.
 

Delaying start dates for new physicians

Typically, graduating residents and fellows signed with their new employers months ago and are ready to start working on July 1. But some employers are pushing back the start date for several months, Mr. Claussen said.

Mr. Claussen has been helping several clients in this situation. He said these delays are often a clear violation of the employment contract. Most contracts require an amendment to change the start date, he said.

Mr. Claussen said some employers have agreed to a new start date in an amended contract, giving the new physicians a solid date to work with. Not having work can be a real problem for graduating residents, who typically have to start paying off loans.

Now physicians won’t become a new partner

Mr. Claussen said physicians who are up for becoming partner are now being told that the deal is off. With less money coming in, existing partners are not willing to share it with a new partner, and there is no work for a new partner.

“The promise to make them partner is usually a verbal promise, so it is much less likely to be a breach of contract,” he said. “It is frustrating for physicians who were expecting to become partner.”

What can physicians do?

When employers present changes to them, physicians often feel their hands are tied, Ms. Adler said. In these dangerous times, they are expected to make sacrifices to keep the organization from going out of business.

Even if they wanted to file suits against their employer, “they can’t go to court right now because the courts are closed,” Ms. Adler said. “Employers are banking on doctors not doing anything.”

In most cases, however, doctors don’t have to act right away, she said. “Just because you have not reacted to the new situation does not mean you accepted it,” she said. “You can wait months, even years to file a lawsuit, depending on the state and the cause of action.”

Ms. Adler recommended that doctors make it clear that they don’t agree with the changes. An attorney experienced in physician contracts can review the changes being made and the amended contracts being offered.

Thanks to recent federal changes, employers have to have some ways to continue paying physicians, Ms. Adler said. Medical practices with fewer than 500 employees can get loans from the federal government that would not have to be repaid if they met certain stipulations, such as hiring back all the employees they terminate, she said.

Mr. Claussen said physicians should resist the obvious dangers, such as a shift to a pure production salary, denying bonus payments for work already done, and forcing physicians you use up PTO days.

He also suggested persuading employers to postpone rather than eliminate payments. “Some employers have agreed to postpone payments until a date later in 2020 rather than eliminate them,” he said. “The aim is that the organization will be back on its feet at that time.”

Mr. Claussen said he is trying to limit the contract amendments to 1 or 2 months. Because the situation caused by the pandemic is so fluid, “this allows for flexibility,” he said. “We can revisit the situation and come up with different changes.”

Ms. Adler doubts employers would accept short-term changes with a definite end date because such changes would not be in the employer’s interest. But Mr. Claussen said one employer has agreed to reevaluate its contracts in June.

Both lawyers agreed that many employers are trying to work with their physicians. “In 90% of the cases I have seen, both sides cooperate,” Ms. Adler said. “Because of the situation, people are being much more conciliatory than they would have been.”

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

Employed physicians have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, or have even been terminated. In many cases, these actions violate their contract. How can they fight them?
 

Michael D., MD, a colorectal surgeon employed in a large surgical practice in Georgia, is still trying to make sense of a late-night directive from the practice, received in late March.

The practice had just started seeing a steep decline in appointments because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a hastily arranged group phone call at 11:00 p.m., the CEO told the group what would have to be done.

They would be taking a 50% reduction in salaries, their bonuses for work already done were being withheld, and they would have to use their paid time off (PTO) in order to get their full March salary.

“It’s been over 2 weeks now, and still we’ve seen nothing formalized in writing,” said Dr. D., who asked that his name not be used because he was told that, under no circumstances, should anyone talk to the media.

“They have not told us anything more since then,” he said. “There’s just been a lot of hearsay and speculation.”

Dr. D. has been in touch with employed physicians at other practices, and their experiences run the gamut. One doctor at a large multispecialty group said his salary hadn’t been reduced at all, but a cardiologist was just told he will be laid off in 60 days.

Asking for big sacrifices

As the pandemic has intensified, employed physicians have started to see massive changes in their payment arrangements. They have had to take large pay cuts, give up bonuses, go on leave, and have even been terminated.

“In my 11 years of work on physician contracts, I have never seen changes as drastic as these,” said Kyle Claussen, a physician contract attorney and CEO of Resolve, a company that advises physicians on their careers. The company is based in Columbia, Mo.

He has heard from more than 100 doctors about these proposed changes in their contracts and related matters. Even graduating residents, he said, are being told that the start dates for their new jobs will be delayed.

In many cases, these actions violate the employed physicians’ contracts, said Ericka Adler, a physician contract attorney at Roetzel & Andress in Chicago.

“Some employers are acting out of desperation and are not making legally sound decisions,” Ms. Adler said. “It’s especially upsetting when they do not try to even talk to or work with the doctor first.”

Employers making unfounded unilateral changes

Ms. Adler said some employers are simply issuing a letter to all doctors. “It goes something like, ‘Just to let you know, we are cutting compensation effective immediately,’ and this may apply across the board to all doctors,” she said.

“But the problem with letters is that this is a contractual matter,” she said. “The employer needs to renegotiate each doctor’s contract.”

Employers might insist that the unilateral changes are based on terms in the contract, but this is usually unfounded, both lawyers said. A “force majeure” clause in contracts would allow the employer to set aside terms under certain specified emergencies, and the pandemic might be one of them. But Mr. Claussen said force majeure clauses are rare in physician contracts, and Ms. Adler said she has never seen one.

Lacking a force majeure clause, employers may try to turn to a common law doctrine that allows employers to set aside a contract when it is impossible to perform its terms, owing, for example, to “an unexpected intervening event.” But this tactic is also questionable, says Ms. Adler, who also represents the employer’s side of the contract. “This is a very high standard and unlikely to be satisfied,” she said.

Employers are desperate to amend contracts

Lacking a cause to take unilateral action, many employers are desperately trying to amend their physician contracts – the subject of the plaintive emails that employed physicians started receiving in mid-March.

“Doctors are trying to decide how they will react to these documents,” Mr. Claussen said. “If they don’t sign, they run the risk of being terminated.” He is expecting termination letters for some of these doctors to start coming in 2-3 weeks.

In response to these amendments, “doctors want to reach out to their employers and see if something can be negotiated,” he said. “Some employers have been amenable, but others have so far not been.”

Ms. Adler said the amendments typically offer open-ended arrangements favoring the employer. “The document might call for a temporary pay cut until the employer thinks they can restore the old salary, but it is up to the employer to decide when that would be,” she said.

Also, when the employer owes the physician for services already performed, the amendments don’t promise to pay them the full amount owed, she said.

Ms. Adler advises doctors to ask for a provision that restoration of their original salary will occur at a definite point in time, such as 30 days after the organization is back at previous volume. And if the doctor is owed money, the doctor should ask for full payment – and to sweeten that offer, allow the employer to pay the doctor back over a period, she says.

Just in the past month, employers have been pushing for several specific changes in doctors’ employment status. Here are some changes that Mr. Claussen and Ms. Adler have been seeing.
 

Withholding quarterly bonuses

In March, just before quarterly bonus payments were due, employed physicians started getting notices that they would not get the bonus, Mr. Claussen said. This covered work already done, and it amounted to a lot of money because practices were busy then.

“Not paying bonuses is a very big deal because they can make up to 50% of a physician’s total compensation,” Mr. Claussen said. He added that unilaterally withholding those funds, without a change in the contract, is legally questionable.

In addition to these changes on past bonuses, he said employers are now trying to temporarily end bonuses going forward through the contract amendments. “It’s not a good idea to sign this,” he said.
 

Doctors paid on pure production are left in the lurch

As volume falls, some hospitals and practices are shutting down doctors’ offices for all but emergencies, leaving their employed doctors with practically nothing to do. Doctors paid purely on their productivity are devastated by this change because their income virtually goes to zero, Mr. Claussen said.

He said office shutdowns are particularly common for specialists because hospitals have been stopping elective procedures during the pandemic, but they can also happen in primary care, which has seen steep declines in patient volume, too.

Having doctors on pure production means that employers can keep doctors hired without having to pay them, Mr. Claussen said. He has seen some employers try to shift more doctors into pure production through the amended contracts.

But Ms. Adler said having doctors on pure production is actually disadvantageous for employers in the current climate. The employer may end up being owed money because of advance payments they have already made to these doctors, she said.

In any case, both lawyers agreed that doctors on a pure production model are in an untenable situation right now. Ms. Adler said they are not earning money but are still technically at work, so they cannot collect unemployment compensation, which would give them some income.

Forcing doctors to use paid time off

To provide some pay for doctors who have no volume, many employers are forcing these doctors to use up their PTO days, which typically amount to about 4 weeks, Mr. Claussen said. “These doctors have no choice in the matter,” he said.

Furthermore, while on PTO, they are being required to take call. Employers are still obligated to cover call, and there may not be enough doctors still working to fill the call schedule. But making doctors do this work on their time off may be a violation of the contract, Mr. Claussen said.

Terminating physicians

Doctors who have little to do are often put on furlough. This means they don’t get paid but they keep their benefits, Ms. Adler said. The next step, she said, is to lay them off, with the stated intention of rehiring them.

Once laid off, she said, they can get unemployment payments. “Unemployment payments may not be anywhere near what they were earning before, but they are better than not earning anything,” Ms. Adler said.

In some cases, employers are just terminating them and are offering no prospect of rehiring them, she said. Ms. Adler said terminations can be a big problem for doctors. Physicians might have to repay a signing bonus or they might lose their malpractice coverage, forcing them to buy a tail. They could also be subject to a noncompete clause, which would not allow them to practice in the area, she said.

Terminating without cause typically requires 60-90 days’ notice, which both sides might use to negotiate some changes in the contract. But Ms. Adler said some employers are firing doctors with cause, and are using legally questionable reasons to do so.

“In most cases, these employers are grasping at straws,” she said. As a result, she expects many fired doctors will file wrongful termination lawsuits. She thinks employers are better advised to negotiate with the physicians.
 

Delaying start dates for new physicians

Typically, graduating residents and fellows signed with their new employers months ago and are ready to start working on July 1. But some employers are pushing back the start date for several months, Mr. Claussen said.

Mr. Claussen has been helping several clients in this situation. He said these delays are often a clear violation of the employment contract. Most contracts require an amendment to change the start date, he said.

Mr. Claussen said some employers have agreed to a new start date in an amended contract, giving the new physicians a solid date to work with. Not having work can be a real problem for graduating residents, who typically have to start paying off loans.

Now physicians won’t become a new partner

Mr. Claussen said physicians who are up for becoming partner are now being told that the deal is off. With less money coming in, existing partners are not willing to share it with a new partner, and there is no work for a new partner.

“The promise to make them partner is usually a verbal promise, so it is much less likely to be a breach of contract,” he said. “It is frustrating for physicians who were expecting to become partner.”

What can physicians do?

When employers present changes to them, physicians often feel their hands are tied, Ms. Adler said. In these dangerous times, they are expected to make sacrifices to keep the organization from going out of business.

Even if they wanted to file suits against their employer, “they can’t go to court right now because the courts are closed,” Ms. Adler said. “Employers are banking on doctors not doing anything.”

In most cases, however, doctors don’t have to act right away, she said. “Just because you have not reacted to the new situation does not mean you accepted it,” she said. “You can wait months, even years to file a lawsuit, depending on the state and the cause of action.”

Ms. Adler recommended that doctors make it clear that they don’t agree with the changes. An attorney experienced in physician contracts can review the changes being made and the amended contracts being offered.

Thanks to recent federal changes, employers have to have some ways to continue paying physicians, Ms. Adler said. Medical practices with fewer than 500 employees can get loans from the federal government that would not have to be repaid if they met certain stipulations, such as hiring back all the employees they terminate, she said.

Mr. Claussen said physicians should resist the obvious dangers, such as a shift to a pure production salary, denying bonus payments for work already done, and forcing physicians you use up PTO days.

He also suggested persuading employers to postpone rather than eliminate payments. “Some employers have agreed to postpone payments until a date later in 2020 rather than eliminate them,” he said. “The aim is that the organization will be back on its feet at that time.”

Mr. Claussen said he is trying to limit the contract amendments to 1 or 2 months. Because the situation caused by the pandemic is so fluid, “this allows for flexibility,” he said. “We can revisit the situation and come up with different changes.”

Ms. Adler doubts employers would accept short-term changes with a definite end date because such changes would not be in the employer’s interest. But Mr. Claussen said one employer has agreed to reevaluate its contracts in June.

Both lawyers agreed that many employers are trying to work with their physicians. “In 90% of the cases I have seen, both sides cooperate,” Ms. Adler said. “Because of the situation, people are being much more conciliatory than they would have been.”

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

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Across the country, hospitals are incorporating Friday’s warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for COVID-19 into their treatment protocols.

For some hospitals, the message affirmed the cautious approach they were already taking with hydroxychloroquine. “From a New York state or Northwell perspective, there is no major change,” said Onisis Stefas, PharmD, vice president of pharmacy at Northwell Health in New York. “We were not prescribing it out in the community very early on because of the concerns associated with the heart arrhythmias.”

Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, is currently in the process of updating its publicly available COVID-19 protocols website “to incorporate the FDA’s updated safety assessment and ongoing clinical trials,” a hospital spokesperson told Medscape Medical News. Prior to the updates, the treatment protocols indicated that hydroxychloroquine should only be considered after weighing the risks and benefits for patients who are not candidates for other clinical trials and meet a specific set of health criteria.

The warning is a timely and important synthesis of what physicians know about the drugs so far and how cautiously clinicians across the country should be using them, said Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Boston, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and chair-elect of the HIV Medicine Association.

“I think to be honest it’s a really important message to the public and clinicians across the country,” said Gandhi. “Because we all know there is just a ton of discussion around this drug ... and it came out fairly and said what we know right now.”

The two antimalarial drugs have been at the center of much political debate and scientific scrutiny in recent weeks, following President Trump’s endorsement and the FDA’s emergency use authorization for the two medications in March. Hospitals across the country had incorporated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine into their constantly evolving treatment protocols for patients with COVID-19.

But the evidence that these drugs actually help treat COVID-19 remains scant. Some small studies suggest the therapies help patients with COVID-19, while others conclude the drugs have no effect or even harm patients. In the United States, medical societies including the American Heart Association have also warned about the serious cardiac issues that can accompany these drugs for some patients.

In the new warning, the FDA said it “cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 patients outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial” and urged “close supervision” of patients treated with these therapies, citing cardiac side effects.

The FDA also said it is aware that the outpatient prescription of these medications has increased since its March authorization, but the drugs still have not been shown to be safe or effective in treating or preventing COVID-19.

The FDA announcement is consistent with protocols established by the National Institutes of Health and IDSA earlier this month that recommend against using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, except when these drugs are administered as part of a clinical trial.

“We agree wholeheartedly with the FDA and have been hoping that the FDA would in fact issue that kind of clarification,” said Samuel Brown, MD, study committee cochair of the ORCHID clinical trial, a multicenter, blinded study investigating the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. These medications need to be tested in clinical trials that are able to focus closely on safety monitoring, he said. Experts at Vanderbilt University, one of the medical centers participating in the ORCHID clinical trial, decided before Tennessee had any cases of COVID-19 that unproven therapies like hydroxychloroquine would only be available through clinical trials, said Wesley Self, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and chair of the ORCHID study committee.

Northwell Health, like other hospitals in New York, has been following a March executive order issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo limiting the use of these drugs for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, said Stefas. At Northwell Health, patients with COVID-19 only receive hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine when treated in hospital, where they can be closely monitored, or as part of a clinical trial. The hospital system’s protocols currently do not recommend pairing hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, said Stefas. The new FDA announcement is “very similar” to New York’s existing executive order, he said. “Reading through this reinforces a lot of what we originally thought.”

At MGH in Boston, the FDA safety warning is in line with and “solidifies” the hospital’s evolving protocols, said Gandhi. Clinicians at MGH have been steadily moving away from prescribing hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials as the efficacy has remained murky, the serious side effects have become more evident, and clinical trials to assess the drug have gotten underway in recent weeks, he said. Given the conflicting evidence, Gandhi feels the use of these drugs needs to be focused in clinical trials, where scientists can truly evaluate how much they help or harm.

“We know fundamentally that’s the way to do this,” Gandhi said. “We also don’t know that it doesn’t work, so it is ethical and incumbent upon us to do a study,” Gandhi said.

Other hospitals are already heeding the FDA’s warning. At UW Medicine in Washington state, for example, hydroxychloroquine was considered a possible treatment for COVID-19 prior to the FDA’s recent announcement. “Based on FDA guidance, hydroxychloroquine is no longer recommended as therapy for COVID-19 unless done through a clinical trial,” said Tim Dellit, MD, chief medical officer for UW Medicine.

Michigan Medicine stopped using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (both separately and in combination) about a month ago, said Daniel Kaul, MD, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Michigan. “When we reviewed the data that was available in more detail, we realized that it was essentially uninterpretable,” he said. As of Monday, the only patients receiving this drug at Michigan Medicine are those enrolled in the ORCHID clinical trial.

But that does not seem to be the case everywhere. Most patients transferred to Michigan Medicine from other hospitals have received these drugs, indicating they are still being widely used, said Kaul. “I think this FDA guidance is appropriate and may reduce usage of this drug and make people more aware of the potential side effects both in inpatient and outpatient settings.”

Hopefully, the FDA guidance will help slow the use of these drugs outside the appropriate clinical trial setting, said Kaul. “I think that the kind of politicization of this drug, which is pretty much unprecedented in my experience, created a really harmful environment where calm decision making and assessment of the relative risks and benefits became somewhat impossible,” said Kaul.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The federal government owes billions of dollars to health insurers under an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help insurers mitigate risk, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

copyright/Kuzma/iStockphoto

In an 8-to-1 vote announced April 27, justices sided with the plaintiff health plans in Maine Community Health Options v. United States, ruling that the risk corridors statute created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount originally calculated and that appropriation measures later passed by Congress did not repeal this obligation.

“In establishing the temporary risk corridors program, Congress created a rare money-mandating obligation requiring the federal government to make payments under [Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act’s] formula,” Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. “Lacking other statutory paths to relief ... petitioners may seek to collect payment through a damages action in the Court of Federal Claims.”

Maine Community Health Options v. United States, which consolidates several lawsuits against the government, centers on the ACA’s risk corridor program, which required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged by more than $12 billion all together.

The U.S. Department of Justice countered that the government is not required to pay the plans because of measures passed by Congress in 2014 and later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justices noted that even after Congress enacted the first rider, HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reiterated that the ACA requires the Secretary to make full payments to issuers and that “HHS [would] record risk corridors payments due as an obligation of the United States government for which full payment is required,” according to the Supreme Court opinion.

“They understood that profitable insurers’ payments to the government would not dispel the Secretary’s obligation to pay unprofitable insurers, even ‘in the event of a shortfall,’ ” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. however, took issue with his fellow justices’ decision. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito wrote that under the ruling, billions of taxpayer dollars will be turned over to insurance companies that bet unsuccessfully on the success of the program in question.

“This money will have to be paid even though Congress has pointedly declined to appropriate money for that purpose,” he wrote. “Not only will today’s decision have a massive immediate impact, its potential consequences go much further.”

The high court remanded the consolidated cases to the lower court for further proceedings on details of the disbursement.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The use of digital tools among physicians has markedly risen since 2016, with telehealth visits and remote patient monitoring making the greatest strides in usage, an American Medical Association report shows.

In 2019, 28% of physicians used televisits/virtual visits, up from 14% in 2016, while remote monitoring and management for improved care rose to 22% in 2019, an increase from 13% in 2016, according to the AMA report, released in February 2020. The report, which surveyed 1,359 doctors, includes responses from 672 primary care physicians and 687 specialists.

Remote monitoring for efficiency, meanwhile, grew to 16% in 2019 from 12% in 2016. Remote monitoring for efficiency pertains to smart versions of common clinical devices such as thermometers, blood pressure cuffs, and scales that automatically enter readings in the record. Remote monitoring for improved care refers to mobile applications and devices used for daily measurement of vital signs such as weight, blood pressure, blood glucose.

Adoption of other digital tools by physicians have also grown, including clinical decision support, which climbed to 37% in 2019 from 28% in 2016 and patient engagement tools, which rose to 33% in 2019, up from 26% in 2016. Clinical decision support tools pertain to modules used in conjunction with the electronic health record (EHR), or mobile applications integrated with an EHR that can signify changes in patient data, such as weight gain/loss, or change in blood chemistry. Patient engagement tools, meanwhile, refer to solutions that promote patient wellness and active patient participation in their care.

Tools that encompass use of point of care/workflow enhancement increased to 47% in 2019, from 42% in 2016. This area includes communication and sharing of electronic clinical data to consult with specialists, make referrals and/or transitions of care. Tools that address consumer access to their clinical data, meanwhile, rose to 58% in 2019 from 53% in 2016, the highest adoption rate among the digital health tool categories.

Overall, more physicians see an advantage to digital health solutions than did 3 years ago. More primary care physicians and specialists in 2019 reported a “definite advantage” to digital tools enhancing care of patients than in 2016. Doctors who see no advantage to such tools are trending downward and are concentrated to those age 50 and older, according to the report.

Solo-practice physicians are slowly increasing their use of digital health tools. In 2016, solo physicians reported using an average of 1.5 digital tools, which in 2019 increased to an average of 2.2 digital tools. Small practices with between one and three doctors used an average of 1.4 tools in 2016, which rose to an average of 2.2 tools in 2019, the report found. PCPs used slightly more digital tools, compared with specialists, in both 2016 and 2019.

Female doctors are slightly ahead of their male counterparts when it comes to digital health tools. In 2019, female physicians used an average of 2.6 digital tools, up from 1.9 in 2016. Male doctors used an average of 2.4 tools in 2019, compared with 1.9 tools in 2016.

For the physicians surveyed, the most important factor associated with usage was that digital tools were covered by malpractice insurance, followed by the importance of data privacy/security ensured by the EHR vendor, and that the tools were well integrated with the EHR. Other important factors included that data security was ensured by the practice or hospital, that doctors were reimbursed for their time spent using digital tools, and that the tools were supported by the EHR vendor.

Regarding the top motivator for doctors to use digital tools, 51% of physicians in 2019 said improved efficiency was “very important,” up from 48% in 2016. Other top motivators included that digital tools increased safety, improved diagnostic ability, and addressed physician burnout.

In 2019, the demonstration of safety and efficacy in peer-reviewed publications as it relates to digital tools also grew in importance. Of the physicians surveyed, 36% reported that safety and efficacy demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications was “very important,” an increase from 32% in 2016. Other “very important” factors for physicians are that digital tools used are proven to be as good/superior to traditional care, that they are intuitive/require no special training, that they align with the standard of care, and that their safety and efficacy is validated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The rise of the digital-native physician will have a profound impact on health care and patient outcomes, and will place digital health technologies under pressure to perform according to higher expectations,” AMA board chair Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “The AMA survey provides deep insight into the emerging requirements that physicians expect from digital technologies and sets an industry guidepost for understanding what a growing number of physicians require to adopt new technology.”

The survey was derived from the same physician panel used in 2016, provided by WebMD. For the 2019 survey, the basic 2016 survey was followed in wording and question order, with a few variations to remove some questions no longer relevant. The 2019 sample used careful quotas to ensure a sample composition similar to that of 2016, according to the report.

agallegos@mdedge.com

SOURCE: AMA Digital Health Research: Physicians’ motivations and requirements for adopting digital health – Adoption and attitudinal shifts from 2016 to 2019. American Medical Association. February 2020.

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The broad use of telemedicine has been a bright spot in the COVID-19 response, but the pandemic is also creating significant disruption as some physicians are furloughed and others consider practice changes.

verbaska_studio/Getty Images

A recent survey of physicians conducted by Merritt Hawkins and The Physicians Foundation examined how physicians are being affected by and responding to the pandemic. The findings are based on completed surveys from 842 physicians. About one-third of respondents are primary care physicians, while two-thirds are surgical, medical, and diagnostic specialists and subspecialists.

The survey shines a light on the rapid adoption of telemedicine, with 48% of physicians respondents reporting that they are now treating patients through telemedicine.

“I think that is purely explainable on the situation that COVID has led to with the desire to see patients remotely, still take care of them, and the fact that at the federal level this was recognized and doctors are being compensated for seeing patients remotely,” Gary Price, MD, a plastic surgeon and president of The Physicians Foundation, said in an interview.

“The Foundation does a study of the nation’s physicians every other year and in 2018, when we asked the same question, only 18% of physicians were using some form of telemedicine,” he added.

And Dr. Price said he thinks the shift to telemedicine is here to stay.

“I think that will be a lasting effect of the pandemic,” he said. “More physicians and more patients will be using telemedicine approaches, I think, from here on out. We will see a shift that persists. I think that’s a good thing. Physicians like it. Patients like it. It won’t replace all in-person visits, certainly, but there are a number of health care visits that could be taken care of quite well with a virtual visit and it saves the patients travel time, time away from work, and I think it can make the physicians’ practice more efficient as well.”

The key to sustainability, he said, will be that private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services continue to pay for it.

“I think we will have had a good demonstration, not only that it can work, but that it does work and that it can be accomplished without any diminishment in the quality of care that’s delivered,” he said.

But the recent survey also identified a number of employment issues that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 18% of respondents who were treating COVID-19 patients and 30% of those not treating COVID-19 patients reported that they had been furloughed or experienced a pay cut. Among respondents, just 38.5% reported that they are seeing COVID-19 patients.

“It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the physician employment sphere,” Dr. Price said. “That was the most surprising thing to me. I think you might be able to explain that by the increasing number of physicians who are employees now of larger health systems and the fact that a big portion of those health systems too, in normal times, involves care that right now no one is able to get to or even wants to be seen for because of the risk, of course, of COVID-19.”

The survey also revealed that some respondents had or were planning a change in practice because of COVID-19: 14% said they had or would seek a different practice, 6% reported they had or would find a job without patient care, 7% said they had or would close their practice temporarily, 5% reported that they had or would retire, and 4% said they had or would leave private practice and seek employment at a hospital.

“The survey represents how they are feeling at the time and it doesn’t mean they will necessarily do that, but if even a portion of doctors did that all at once, we would really aggravate an access problem and what we know is a worsening physician shortage in the country,” he said. “So we are very concerned about that.”

Dr. Price also predicted there would be increased consolidation within the health care system as more smaller, independent practices feel the financial stress of the pandemic.

“I hope that I am wrong about that,” he said. “I think smaller practices offer a very cost-effective solution for high-quality care, and their competition in the marketplace for health care is a good and healthy thing.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com