User login
Prioritizing ambulatory gynecology care during COVID-19: The latest guidance
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What exactly constitutes appropriate ambulatory gynecology during this time of social distancing?
On March 30, 2020, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) weighed in, releasing COVID-19 FAQs for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. These recommendations, which include information about obstetric and gynecologic surgery, are available to everyone, including the general public. They are intended to supplement guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as previously released ACOG guidance.
The recommendations include examples of patients needing in-person appointments, telehealth visits, or visits that should be deferred.
In-person appointments. Examples of patients for whom in-person appointments are appropriate include those with suspected ectopic pregnancy or profuse vaginal bleeding. With respect to contraceptive services, ACOG suggests that placement of IUDs and implants should continue whenever possible. If placement of the contraceptive device is deferred, use of self-administered hormonal contraceptives (including subcutaneous injections, oral, transdermal patch, and vaginal ring) should be encouraged as a bridge to later initiation of long-acting methods.
Telehealth visits. Video or telephone visits are advised for women desiring counseling and prescribing for contraception or menopausal symptoms.
Deferred. Deferral of office visits until after COVID-19 lockdowns is advised for average-risk women wishing routine well-woman visits. Other situations in which deferral should be considered include the following:
- For patients with abnormal cervical cancer screening results, ACOG suggests that colposcopy with cervical biopsies could be deferred for 6-12 months for patients with low-grade test results. In contrast, for patients with high-grade results, ACOG recommends that evaluation be performed within 3 months.
- For women who wish to discontinue their contraceptive, ACOG advises that removal of IUDs and implants be postponed when possible. These women should be counseled regarding extended use of these devices.
ACOG emphasizes that decisions regarding ambulatory gynecology should be individualized and take into consideration such issues as availability of local and regional resources, staffing, personal protective equipment, and the local prevalence of COVID-19.
As a gynecologist focused on ambulatory care, I believe that many clinicians will welcome this guidance from ACOG, which helps us provide optimal care during these challenging times.
Dr. Kaunitz is professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida, Jacksonville. He has disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate, serving on the safety monitoring board for Femasys, and serving as a consultant for AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Mithra, and Pfizer. His institution has received funding from pharmaceutical companies and nonprofits.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Will coronavirus restrictions lead to more advanced cancers?
My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.
Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”
But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.
But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
COVID-19: A natural experiment
For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.
Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.
Until now.
The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.
The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
The pressure to ‘fight’
The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.
The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.
Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.
This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.
The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
Metaphors of war
These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.
Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.
When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.
After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.
Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.
Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”
But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.
But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
COVID-19: A natural experiment
For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.
Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.
Until now.
The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.
The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
The pressure to ‘fight’
The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.
The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.
Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.
This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.
The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
Metaphors of war
These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.
Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.
When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.
After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.
Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
My pathology lab once faced a daily flood of colon polyps, pap smears, and prostate biopsies. Suddenly, our work has dried up. The coronavirus pandemic has cleared out operating rooms and clinics across the country. Endoscopy and radiology suites have gone dark.
Pathology is largely driven by mass screening programs, and the machinery of screening has grinded to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Cancer Society currently recommends that “no one should go to a health care facility for routine cancer screening at this time.”
But malignancies are still growing and spreading even though a great deal of medical care is on hold. The most urgent cancer care is still taking place; the risks of delaying treatment for patients with advanced or symptomatic cancer are obvious—these tumors can cause severe pain and life-threatening complications.
But that leaves us with a more complex and uncomfortable question: Will the pause in screening ultimately leave patients with tiny, asymptomatic cancers or precursor lesions worse off? What will a delay mean for those with ductal carcinoma in situ or small breast cancers? What’s the long-term effect of all those dysplastic nevi and early melanoma left unexcised by dermatologists? Perhaps more troubling, what about the spreading kidney cancer that may have turned up as an incidental finding on a CT scan?
COVID-19: A natural experiment
For many years, we’ve been dealing with the other side of the screening question: overdiagnosing and treating cancers that would probably never harm the patient. Overdiagnosis has been on a decades-long rise due to organized screening like PSA testing and mammography, as well as through ad hoc detection from heavier use of medical imaging. All of these have been disrupted by the pandemic.
Because the correlation between medical interventions and cancer overdiagnosis is clear, we can safely assume that overdiagnosis will decline during the pandemic. But what will be the net effect? Early detection of cancer undoubtedly saves some lives, but how many and at what cost has been a seemingly intractable debate.
Until now.
The coronavirus outbreak will be a natural experiment like no other. Economists and epidemiologists love to study “natural experiments” – systemic shocks that shed light on a complex phenomenon.
The unexpected nationwide delay in screening will undoubtedly inform the debate on overdiagnosis. For one, we can learn whether less intensive screening leads to more advanced cancers. Because screening will probably return to normal at different times across the country, we can almost simulate a randomized trial. Will this transformative data be a silver lining to this awful time?
The pressure to ‘fight’
The pandemic has also raised a question about cancer screening that goes beyond data: Why has the loud epidemic of coronavirus so thoroughly trumped cancer’s silent one? To me, the necessary urgency of our coronavirus response stands in stark contrast to the overly aggressive public health messaging used for cancer screening.
The tools used to fight the coronavirus epidemic have been forceful. We’re all diligently washing our hands and staying inside. We’re making sacrifices in our jobs and personal lives to stop the virus’ spread.
Cancer screening has similarly been touted as dogma – an urgent public health intervention that only a fool would turn down. The American Cancer Society once ran an infamous advertisement suggesting that if you decline mammography, you “need more than your breasts examined.” Even today, well-intentioned organizations run cancer screening drives pushing people to pledge to “get screened now.” It is no surprise, then, that I have had patients and family members confide in me that they feel guilty about not pursuing all of their recommended screening tests. The thought of anyone feeling like they caused their own cancer appalls me.
This pressure extends into the clinic. In many practices, primary care doctors are evaluated based on how many patients “comply” with screening recommendations. There seems to be a relentless drive to reach 100% screening penetration. These oversimplified tactics run counter to the shared decision making and informed consent we profess to value in medicine.
The tricky thing about cancer screening is that because most people will never develop the cancer being screened for, we know that most people can also never be helped by it. This doesn’t make screening useless, just as washing your hands can help even if it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t catch coronavirus. We know that some individuals benefit, which we detect at the population level. Overdiagnosis arises in the same way, as a phenomenon detected within populations and not individuals. These aspects of screening are what has led to cancer being viewed as a “societal disease” requiring a uniform response – 100% screening compliance.
Metaphors of war
These assumptions fall apart now that we are facing a real societal disease, an infectious disease outbreak. Coronavirus has made us reflect on what actions individuals should take in order to protect others. But cancer is not a contagion. When we decide whether and how to screen, we make intimate decisions affecting primarily ourselves and our family – not society at large.
Countless articles have been written about the use of metaphor in cancer, perhaps most famously by essayist and breast cancer patient Susan Sontag. Sontag and others have been critical of the rampant use of war metaphors in the cancer community. Wars invoke sacrifice, duty, and suffering. The “battle” against coronavirus really puts the “war on cancer” in perspective. These pandemic weeks have terrified me. I have been willing to do anything to protect myself and others. They’ve also exhausted me. We can’t be at war forever.
When this current war ends, will the “war on cancer” resume unchanged? Screening will no doubt begin again, hopefully improved by data from the coronavirus natural experiment. But I wonder whether we will tolerate the same kinds of public health messages – and whether we should – having now experienced an infectious disease outbreak where our actions as individuals really do have an impact on the health of others.
After feeling helpless, besieged, and even guilt-ridden during the pandemic, I think many people would appreciate regaining a sense of control over other aspects of their health. Cancer screening can save lives, but it’s a choice we should make for ourselves based on an understanding of the trade-offs and our own preferences. When screening restarts, I hope its paternalistic dogma can be replaced by nuanced, empowering tactics more appropriate for peacetime.
Benjamin Mazer, MD, MBA, is an anatomic and clinical pathology resident at Yale with interests in diagnostic surgical pathology, laboratory management, and evidence-based medicine.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
European COVID-19 insights: Try helmet CPAP
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Noninvasive ventilation with helmet continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) deserves to be embraced as an effective strategy in preventing self-induced lung injury, often a key factor in progression from the early milder expression of COVID-19 disease to classic severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, according to European physicians who have been through what they hope are the worst days of the pandemic in the Lombardy region of Northern Italy.
Helmet CPAP is a relatively inexpensive, convenient, well-tolerated intervention. It allows patients to remain conscious and responsive to commands such as “Time to roll over,” which in turn frees up nursing staff. The purpose of helmet CPAP is to curb the huge inspiratory drive that’s a defining feature of this disease and which, unchecked, can lead to self-induced lung injury (SILI), Luciano Gattinoni, MD, explained at a webinar hosted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
“Paranoid attention to inspiratory effort – checking it and correcting it – is something where we can make the difference between death and life. It’s extremely important,” said Dr. Gattinoni, guest professor of anesthesiology and intensive care at the University of Gottingen (Germany).
He and his fellow panelists were in accord regarding the merits of helmet CPAP as the premier method of noninvasive ventilatory assistance. They also addressed the importance of monitoring for hypercoagulation, as well as what they’ve come to see as the essential role of pronation in what they define as Type H disease, and the need to have detailed respiratory physiotherapy protocols in place.
“COVID-19 doesn’t like physiotherapy,” explained Paolo Pelosi, MD, professor of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine at the University of Genoa (Italy).
Dr. Gattinoni is credited for identification of two polar phenotypes of what he considers to be a single COVID-19 disease. Early on, many patients present with an atypical form of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), distinguished by an often-unexpected degree of hypoxia accompanied by high pulmonary compliance and surprisingly little shortness of breath. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues call this Type L disease, which stands for low elastane, low ventilation to perfusion ratio, low lung weight on CT, and low lung recruitability, which means the patient has a high proportion of aerated lung tissue. Over time, because of either the natural history of the disease or SILI, this may shift to Type H disease, marked by high elastane, high right-to-left shunt, high lung weight, and high recruitability.
“If the pulmonary compliance is above 60 [mL/cm H2O], I’m pretty sure it’s Type L. If it’s 30 [mL/cm H2O] or less, I’m pretty sure it’s Type H. Don’t ask me about 45-55 [mL/cm H2O]; it’s a grey zone,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
Giuseppe Foti, MD, said helmet CPAP in patients with COVID-19 should be free flow, not attached to a ventilator, and the gas flow should be set high – at least 50 L/min – in order to prevent CO2 rebreathing. Although noninvasive ventilation is well accepted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, it hasn’t been extensively studied in the setting of ARDS. A notable exception is a single-center randomized trial in which 83 patients with ARDS at the University of Chicago were assigned to noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet or face mask (JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315[22]:2435-41). The endotracheal intubation rate was just 18% in the helmet group, compared with 62% in the face mask group. The 90-day mortality rate was significantly lower in the helmet group as well, noted Dr. Foti, director of the department of anesthesia and intensive care at Monza University Hospital in Milan.
Christian Putensen, MD, said he views intubation for mechanical ventilation as wise in moderate or severe ARDS with an arterial oxygen partial pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio below 150. But in milder, Type L COVID-19 disease, he also likes helmet CPAP. It spares the patient from the traumatic compressive stress to the lung induced by mechanical ventilation, which may cause alveolar edema and SILI.
There is, however, a caveat: “Watch carefully and do not delay intubation if you see helmet CPAP is not working; that is, if the blood gas analysis doesn’t improve, the respiratory rate increases, tidal volume increases, and there is still increased respiratory drive,” advised Dr. Putensen, an anesthesiologist at the University of Bonn (Germany).
There is no agreed-upon practical quantitative measure of respiratory drive. A clinical evaluation of the patient’s depth of inspiration is the best guide, he added.
Dr. Gattinoni said that, when helmet CPAP can’t control respiratory drive in a patient with early-stage disease, he feels the only way to interrupt this destructive process is through early intubation and what he termed “gentle mechanical ventilation,” not with a positive end expiratory pressure of 20 cm H2O, but more like 4-5.
Watch for hypercoagulation
Thromboembolic complications are a common feature in COVID-19 disease.
“I’ve had occasion to see the autopsy results in more than 100 patients. It’s devastating to see the number of thromboses and microthromboses in the lungs, the liver, the kidney, and in the brain,” Dr. Gattinoni said.
“COVID-19 is a serial killer, no doubt,” Dr. Pelosi agreed. “He has no mercy for anyone. And he has two bullets: The first one is for the lung, the second is on the vascular side.”
Dr. Putensen is aggressive in utilizing prophylactic high-dose anticoagulation with heparin. He carefully monitors levels of fibrinogen, Factors V and VIII, and d-dimers. In the setting of COVID-19, he has found thromboelastography to be more reliable than partial thromboplastin time in guiding heparin titration.
Pronation
Panelists agreed that pronation is an especially valuable means of enhancing oxygenation in patients with Type H disease. Dr. Putensen tries for more than 16 hours per day. Dr. Foti is preparing a study of the impact of pronation in 50 awake, nonintubated patients, most of whom were on helmet CPAP. Seven of them couldn’t tolerate pronation for even an hour at a time; for the others, the median duration was 3.5 hours at a time.
“We saw a dramatic improvement, a nearly doubling in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio,” Dr. Foti said.
The helmet CPAP study was done outside of the ICU because, in March 2020, the Milan hospital was utterly overwhelmed by COVID-19. The university hospital ordinarily has 25 ICU beds. This was expanded to 100 ICU beds in an effort to meet the emergency, but that still wasn’t sufficient. Indeed, COVID-19 patients occupied 600 of the hospital’s 650 beds. Physicians were forced to do something formerly unthinkable: triage patients for intubation and mechanical ventilation based upon age, comorbidities, and survival prospects.
“We felt schizophrenic. I completely agree with Luciano’s idea to intubate early when we cannot control the respiratory drive that’s due to the disease. But we couldn’t do it because we had too many patients. So we had to triage,” Dr. Foti recalled, breaking off with a sob as other panelists wiped away their own tears during the webcast.
Respiratory physical therapy
Dr. Pelosi said he believes that optimal care of patients with COVID-19 disease requires a major commitment to physical therapy. He strongly recommends having thoughtfully designed separate written protocols in place for respiratory physiotherapy during mechanical ventilation, weaning, and postextubation. COVID-19 patients typically require 7-10 days of assisted ventilation before weaning, and weaning is a protracted process as well.
“I like to say COVID-19 always requires patience. You have to be very, very patient with this disease,” he emphasized. “These patients have a long and difficult weaning. If the patient isn’t improving during weaning, look at two issues: superinfection and thrombembolism, macro and micro.” The physical therapy measures routinely utilized at his hospital during mechanical ventilation include elevation of the bed head greater than 30 degrees, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, subglottic secretion suctioning, tracheal and oral aspiration, and cough assistance. Separate physical therapy menus are used during before and after extubation.
Dr. Gattinoni offered a final word: “We can do almost nothing with this disease. We try our best to keep the patient alive. What we can do is avoid excessive ventilation of the patient. Applying the typical treatment of ARDS in atypical [Type L] ARDS does not make sense and may be extremely harmful.”
Private equity: Salvation or death sentence?
The dermatologist had been in practice just a few years when he was approached by a private equity group. This was around 2015, when dermatology was just starting to buzz about investor buyouts. He was curious, so he agreed to meet with the company.
“They approached me with the idea that they could help me grow my practice, help my patients, and cut down overhead,” said the northern Alabama dermatologist, who asked that his name not be used. Over a lavish dinner, the investors lauded the clinician for his business acumen and for having built a great practice so quickly. They made an enticing buyout offer.
Before agreeing, he thought it over. He told the investors he wanted a few more years on his own before he’d consider a buyout. They encouraged him to think about it some more. He did, but the answer was still no.
Suddenly, the investors became aggressive and threatening. “They told me, ‘you have just made the biggest mistake of your early career. We’re going to make sure that our practice swallows you up, and if we can’t take you over and put you out of business, we’re going to buy up everyone around you so you can’t survive,’ ” said the dermatologist.
Surprisingly, the experience did not sour him on private equity – he even entertained a successor company’s offer. But he’s become more circumspect. “It has the potential to do good,” he said, adding that such financial support could help him pay employees, keep the lights on, and improve care. But the investors’ emphasis on profit is not appealing, he said.
“I’m going to have to have good proof that it’s truly going to improve patient care and outcomes. And I haven’t seen that yet,” he said.
Salvation or death sentence?
Depending on whom you ask, the continuing growth of private equity purchases of dermatology practices is either the death – or salvation – of the specialty.
Many dermatologists question whether the financial backers will invest in quality of care, or if they just will hire mid-level providers to churn out procedures to plump up revenues.
Neither the controversy nor the acquisitions show any sign of abating.
The American Academy of Dermatology has hosted debates on the topic at its annual meetings – and was to do so in 2020 until COVID-19 led to the meeting’s cancellation. AAD has not weighed in with any official policy and is not releasing data it may be collecting on the potential impact of private equity ownership. The organization provided a statement from President George J. Hruza, MD, who said, “the AAD supports a member’s right to choose the model that works best for them,” adding that the Academy “expects its members to provide safe and effective patient care, regardless of a dermatologist’s practice setting.” Dr. Hruza sold his Chesterfield, Mo., practice to United Skin Specialists, a private equity–backed company, in 2016, and still works at the same practice.
Some have said the acquisitions need to stop. “Until meaningful data are available on what happens to the quality of care and affordability for patients and payers, dermatologists should stop selling their practices to private equity firms, and legislators should prohibit such transactions,” wrote Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, and Jamar Slocum, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an editorial in July (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1007-8).
Although he acknowledged that he has not tracked the issue closely and that little data exist on the impact on quality or cost, Dr. Sharfstein has not changed his tune. “I think there are enough warning signs to say we should put the brakes on,” he said in an interview.
“For what reason?” asked Betsy Wernli, MD, president of Forefront Dermatology, an investor-owned group based in Manitowoc, Wis. She said it seems that “on this topic, we abandon our scientific foundations and default to emotion and anecdote,” she said in an interview. “Having capital, and an investor that supports us has allowed us to perform better patient care,” she said. Dermatologist variance across all practices and practice models should be cause for more concern, she added.
Sailesh Konda, MD, has been an outspoken critic. Dr. Konda, medical director and clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues detailed the complicated financial machinations of private equity in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. They showed that private investors seemed to hone in on buying outlier practices that performed high numbers of procedures. The paper – first made public in the fall of 2018 – created an uproar, especially among private equity companies. It was initially removed from the website in conjunction with a request from the editor that its conclusions be altered to be less harsh on private equity, according to the New York Times. The paper was eventually published in 2019 (J Am Acad Dermatol. Jul;81[1]:287-296.e8).
Dr. Konda has spoken at various dermatology forums and health care gatherings on private equity. He told the Times that he had given 16 talks to health care groups in 2018, and he was due to speak to a health care investors’ group in 2020. But he would not comment on the record for this story.
Brett Coldiron, MD, a former president of the AAD, also has been critical. He believes investor-owners push for more biopsies, freezing of actinic keratoses, Moh’s surgery, and other well-paying procedures. “I’m convinced that private equity may be the undoing of our specialty,” Dr. Coldiron said in an interview.
In a paper titled, “Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices,” published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2019, Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, chief of the division of health policy and economics at New York’s Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues wrote that “private equity firms focus on specialties with high potential for additional income from elective procedures and ancillary services,” and that “dermatology has been a major focus” (Ann Intern Med. 2019;170[2]:114-5).
And in a viewpoint published in JAMA in February 2019, first-year medical student Suhas Gondi and Zirui Song, MD, PhD, both of Harvard Medical School, Boston, concluded that investor-owned practices could drive up overall health spending in part because they extract better reimbursement from insurers (JAMA. 2019;321[11]:1047-8).
Access could also become an issue if the companies drive smaller independent practices out of business, they wrote.
On the other hand, they said, “these investments may also benefit patients and bring more efficiency to a system burdened with waste.” The authors called for more research and “thoughtful regulation” to enhance the potential positives while mitigating the negatives.
So far, the acquisitions have largely escaped the notice of regulators or lawmakers. Congress has made noises about targeting specialty practices owned by private equity as a means of taming surprise medical bills, but that legislation has been stymied.
Dr. Coldiron is convinced that private investors will eventually be tripped up by state laws that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine.
Leslie Baumann, MD, who sold her Miami practice in October 2019 to the investor-owned Skin and Cancer Associates, said critics are too cynical. “What if these private equity firms are going to actually make our specialty better?” she asked in an interview.
What makes dermatology attractive?
Private equity has been acquiring specialty practices since at least 2009, with an acceleration over the last 5 years. Dermatology has been a frequent target, in part because so many dermatologists were in independent or small group private practices, making them ripe for takeover.
A 2015 report on the specialty by Cegedim, a company that provides information technology support to health care, found that the majority of practices had fewer than five physicians and that 57% of the practices were independent.
But more dermatologists are choosing employment. In a 2018 Medscape survey, 57% of dermatologists reported they were employed, while 49% were self-employed.
During 2013-2016, investors bought 35 dermatology practices – comprising 334 physicians, according to one study published in February (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:663-5). Investors bought 69 anesthesiology practices, 43 emergency medicine practices, and 39 family medicine practices during the same period.
Harvard’s Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song estimated that dermatology practices accounted for 15% of investor purchases in 2015 and 2016, even though dermatologists make up just 1% of U.S. clinicians.
In another paper published in JAMA Dermatology, Sally Tan, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Harvard medical and business schools, estimated that, in 2019, at least 184 practices, comprising 381 clinics, were owned by 17 private equity groups and that the acquisitions had been accelerating: from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017 to 34 in the first 5 months of 2018 (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1013-21).
“It’s a very attractive area for investors because they know that the future is bright for dermatology,” said Reuven Porges, MD, CEO of Ft. Lauderdale-based Skin and Cancer Associates, which is owned by a private investor. Because dermatology involves providing many ancillary services and cash-only cosmetic services, “it has tremendous potential to continue to be successful in the future regardless of what health care changes are coming,” Dr. Porges said in an interview.
Investors also see promise in dermatology in the United States because “there’s a huge supply demand mismatch,” said Vance Vanier, MD, a cofounding managing partner at Chicago Pacific Founders, the private equity owner of Pinnacle Dermatology, which has 52 locations in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Tennessee.
Theoretically, when investors handle billing, insurance negotiations, and health information technology, it gives clinicians more time to practice, Dr. Vanier said in an interview.
“Once that doctor is freed up to not do administrative tasks and focus on patient care, then, if they want to, they can see more patients and be more responsive to their needs,” he said.
Dr. Vanier said investor acquisitions are here to stay. “This is a trend that could go on for another 50 years before any saturation point is hit,” he said. “It’s a $2 trillion market. It’s hard to wrap your head around how enormous health care services is,” he said.
Dermatology acquisitions will be driven by the continuing imbalance of physician supply and patient demand; the financial pressure on newly graduating physicians who have big debt loads; the requirements for investment in health information technology to report quality metrics; and an aging population, Dr. Vanier said.
In a JAMA Dermatology viewpoint, Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, listed many of the same factors – plus a skin cancer epidemic – as fueling dermatology acquisitions (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[1]:13-4).
Medical practices – not just dermatology practices – also offer a pure financial play. “Acquisitions of smaller practices provide a major arbitrage opportunity,” Dr. Casalino and colleagues said in the January 2019 Annals of Internal Medicine paper. In a merger of smaller practices into larger, the smaller practice’s valuation immediately becomes that of the bigger one, they wrote.
Could the bottom fall out?
Creating giant groups through consolidation is a main aim for private equity.
Skin and Cancer Associates, founded in 1971, was a large entity, with 25 practices. But for a long time, its leaders had wanted to become a regional or a national player, said Dr. Porges. Those leaders asked Dr. Porges – who helped take his former radiology practice through a private equity purchase – to help them attract investors. In March 2018, Susquehanna Private Capital signed on as a “partner” with Skin and Cancer Associates.
It has since almost doubled in size, with 40 locations and 60 dermatologists, all in Florida, Dr. Porges said. “The only limiting factor for growing it as fast as we want, is really money,” he said.
Consolidation is just an initial step. Most investors have a finite timeline for cashing out. “The ultimate goal is often to realize a profitable secondary sale in three to seven years to another PE investor (or even a publicly traded entity),” Dr. Resneck wrote in the 2018 JAMA Dermatology paper.
Not all private equity companies are the same, said Dr. Wernli, of Forefront. Dermatologists can investigate a company’s “hold period” – how long they keep an investment before trading – and the strength of its capitalization before deciding to sell, she said.
Since 2016, Forefront has been owned by the Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System (OMERS), a pension fund for the province’s public workers. OMERS bought Forefront from Varsity Healthcare Partners, which had owned the dermatology group for just 2 years.
Dr. Wernli said OMERS is a good, solid investor. “They have unlimited resources to invest so they don’t have to quickly flip a company to satisfy an investment in another company,” she said.
Some investor-backed dermatology practices have gone belly up. In 2012, WestWind Investors bought DermOne, based in Toms River, N.J. But by early 2018, the business had fallen apart, and some practices – in North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia – just shut their doors.
Long Island City, N.Y.–based Schweiger Dermatology Group, backed by private equity, snapped up nine of the New Jersey DermOne practices in March 2018.
Another private equity–backed company, U.S. Dermatology Partners, defaulted on a $377 million loan in January 2020. As reported by Bloomberg, the company had $340 million in revenue in 2018. U.S. Dermatology’s owners are reportedly working out a recapitalization or debt-for-equity swap with the lenders.
Dr. Wernli said that financial problems aren’t unique to investor-owned practices and that doctors could still be out of a job if a private practice goes under.
“A private practice can also default on their loans that they’ve used to fund their own personal practice, leaving employed physicians in the same situation,” she said.
Patients are likely to be in the dark, however, until the doors close.
Pressure on practices
Private equity is changing the shape of practice for both those who work for investor-owned businesses and those still out on their own.
The Alabama dermatologist, for instance, said it has made it harder for him to recruit new doctors, who are offered big signing bonuses and a steady income by the investor-owned practices. “They’re skewing the numbers,” he said, adding that residents are now expecting a big payment and benefits.
Dr. Baumann said that when she was on her own, she had trouble finding and recruiting good dermatologists. But it has become easier since she’d sold to Skin and Cancer Associates, she said, noting that Dr. Porges recently found a qualified candidate for her to interview a week after she put in a request.
Another dermatologist in a Midwestern metropolitan practice – who did not want his name used – said that when it came time for him to increase his equity stake, his older partner, who was near retirement and had explored selling to private equity – wanted four-and-a-half times the price that had been discussed when he joined the practice.
The younger partner believes the private equity offers inflated the practice’s valuation in his partner’s mind. He ended up leaving the practice.
Many dermatologists have been led to believe that their practices are worth more than they might be, according to Dr. Coldiron. “I think a lot of these doctors that sell out are deluded. They think that they’re getting a lot of money and they’re not,” he said.
Typically, investors may offer three or four times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). The money paid out is taxed at the capital gains rate, which provides some savings. “But you have to pay that all back, because when they sign you up, you become an employee,” Dr. Coldiron said.
Doctors often agree to work for 5 years, but during that period, their base salary is decreased while the buyout cash is meted out to them, he added. A chunk of the buyout usually is also given as equity, but that equity is worthless unless the investor sells to another entity.
Pinnacle Dermatology doesn’t want doctors to retire immediately upon an acquisition, said Dr. Vanier of Chicago Pacific Founders. “We want to find physician partners who want to keep working,” he said. “We strongly believe if you don’t have strong physician leadership, experienced physician leadership, that your odds of success go down.”
Chicago Pacific also believes physicians should have an ownership interest, he said. It allows them to share in the eventual financial rewards – whether that’s 5 or 20 years later, said Dr. Vanier.
Dr. Coldiron sees other pressures that skew practice styles and can harm patient care. Clinicians in investor-owned practices are often urged to refer all dermatopathology to labs owned by the practice and often, a Moh’s surgeon is employed to service all the practices – sometimes even being flown in from elsewhere, he claimed.
That takes away the clinician’s autonomy in terms of referring where he or she feels appropriate and also could harm pathologists and Moh’s surgeons that depend on those referral streams, he added.
In their paper, Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song wrote that this practice is concerning because “keeping referrals within the practice may render referral patterns less responsive to patient needs or preference.”
Procedure factories?
Many critics say investor-backed practices are goosing revenues by hiring more mid-level providers – such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants – and getting them to perform more procedures.
Midlevel practitioners do more biopsies than dermatologists do to get a diagnosis, according to Dr. Coldiron.
A 2018 JAMA Dermatology study appears to back that up. Physician assistants needed to conduct 3.9 biopsies to diagnose one skin cancer, compared to 3.3 for dermatologists. For a single melanoma, the number needed to biopsy was 39.4 for PAs and 25.4 for dermatologists (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[5]:569-73).
Skin biopsies have almost doubled in the last decade, said Dr. Coldiron. “The skin cancer epidemic would account for only half of that,” he said.
“The ultimate loser is the patient – because the patient doesn’t get the highest quality care and the patient has unnecessary things done to him or her,” he said. But, he said, he could not directly tie the biopsy increase to the rise of private equity.
Forefront tracks the number of biopsies per patient done by every dermatologist in its network – to make sure that no one is outside the norms set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Dr. Wernli. And she said biopsies declined after the group was bought by private equity.
Dr. Baumann said the average number of biopsies per patient at Skin and Cancer Associates in 2019 was 0.20 – less than the 0.30 average reported by Medicare that same year.
The rising use of mid-level providers existed long before private equity came on the scene, said Dr. Wernli. “There’s not enough board-certified dermatologists to satisfy need,” she said, noting that, in addition, many clinicians won’t serve rural areas. “If we don’t move and extend ourselves, there will be someone who fills our shoes,” she said, adding that Forefront has 1 mid-level for every 1.5 to 2 dermatologists.
Skin and Cancer Associates has 55 doctors and 29 physician assistants, said Dr. Baumann, adding that she had not been pressured to add any mid-level providers to her practice.
Excitement about sale shot down
Dr. Wernli and Dr. Baumann both have been happy with their decision to ally with private equity. For Dr. Baumann, however, her move was tinged by online attacks that reflected the strong opinions on the topic.
She began looking into selling her practice when one of her businesses – Skin Type Solutions – began taking off. Both her clinical practice and research business were thriving. She had two children at home and was having a hard time keeping up with the administrative end of her businesses.
None of her partners nor any groups in Miami showed interest in purchasing the practice, so she began researching private equity. She spoke with seven companies before settling on Skin and Cancer Associates. They had “a long track record of successfully running practices,” said Dr. Baumann, adding that “the doctors who work there are happy, and I respect the quality of the physicians and the organization.”
When she closed the deal in October 2019, she agreed to stay on for 5 years and signed a noncompete clause that she deems “very reasonable.” Among the perks she cites: being able to consult via telemedicine with an expert on pigmented lesions; quick and easy referrals to a Moh’s surgeon; being able to train residents; and having paid personal time off.
It’s less responsibility and the same or better job satisfaction, she said.
But when she shared the news on a private Facebook group for board-certified dermatologists, she was vilified. Of some 195 comments, about half were “mean,” said Dr. Baumann.
“I was shocked about how strongly everybody feels,” she said. Those commenting accused her of doing it for the money or said that her move was contributing to the ruination of dermatology.
“I just defended myself,” she said. “For me, it was my time.”
Dr. Coldiron and Dr. Baumann are members of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.
The dermatologist had been in practice just a few years when he was approached by a private equity group. This was around 2015, when dermatology was just starting to buzz about investor buyouts. He was curious, so he agreed to meet with the company.
“They approached me with the idea that they could help me grow my practice, help my patients, and cut down overhead,” said the northern Alabama dermatologist, who asked that his name not be used. Over a lavish dinner, the investors lauded the clinician for his business acumen and for having built a great practice so quickly. They made an enticing buyout offer.
Before agreeing, he thought it over. He told the investors he wanted a few more years on his own before he’d consider a buyout. They encouraged him to think about it some more. He did, but the answer was still no.
Suddenly, the investors became aggressive and threatening. “They told me, ‘you have just made the biggest mistake of your early career. We’re going to make sure that our practice swallows you up, and if we can’t take you over and put you out of business, we’re going to buy up everyone around you so you can’t survive,’ ” said the dermatologist.
Surprisingly, the experience did not sour him on private equity – he even entertained a successor company’s offer. But he’s become more circumspect. “It has the potential to do good,” he said, adding that such financial support could help him pay employees, keep the lights on, and improve care. But the investors’ emphasis on profit is not appealing, he said.
“I’m going to have to have good proof that it’s truly going to improve patient care and outcomes. And I haven’t seen that yet,” he said.
Salvation or death sentence?
Depending on whom you ask, the continuing growth of private equity purchases of dermatology practices is either the death – or salvation – of the specialty.
Many dermatologists question whether the financial backers will invest in quality of care, or if they just will hire mid-level providers to churn out procedures to plump up revenues.
Neither the controversy nor the acquisitions show any sign of abating.
The American Academy of Dermatology has hosted debates on the topic at its annual meetings – and was to do so in 2020 until COVID-19 led to the meeting’s cancellation. AAD has not weighed in with any official policy and is not releasing data it may be collecting on the potential impact of private equity ownership. The organization provided a statement from President George J. Hruza, MD, who said, “the AAD supports a member’s right to choose the model that works best for them,” adding that the Academy “expects its members to provide safe and effective patient care, regardless of a dermatologist’s practice setting.” Dr. Hruza sold his Chesterfield, Mo., practice to United Skin Specialists, a private equity–backed company, in 2016, and still works at the same practice.
Some have said the acquisitions need to stop. “Until meaningful data are available on what happens to the quality of care and affordability for patients and payers, dermatologists should stop selling their practices to private equity firms, and legislators should prohibit such transactions,” wrote Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, and Jamar Slocum, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an editorial in July (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1007-8).
Although he acknowledged that he has not tracked the issue closely and that little data exist on the impact on quality or cost, Dr. Sharfstein has not changed his tune. “I think there are enough warning signs to say we should put the brakes on,” he said in an interview.
“For what reason?” asked Betsy Wernli, MD, president of Forefront Dermatology, an investor-owned group based in Manitowoc, Wis. She said it seems that “on this topic, we abandon our scientific foundations and default to emotion and anecdote,” she said in an interview. “Having capital, and an investor that supports us has allowed us to perform better patient care,” she said. Dermatologist variance across all practices and practice models should be cause for more concern, she added.
Sailesh Konda, MD, has been an outspoken critic. Dr. Konda, medical director and clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues detailed the complicated financial machinations of private equity in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. They showed that private investors seemed to hone in on buying outlier practices that performed high numbers of procedures. The paper – first made public in the fall of 2018 – created an uproar, especially among private equity companies. It was initially removed from the website in conjunction with a request from the editor that its conclusions be altered to be less harsh on private equity, according to the New York Times. The paper was eventually published in 2019 (J Am Acad Dermatol. Jul;81[1]:287-296.e8).
Dr. Konda has spoken at various dermatology forums and health care gatherings on private equity. He told the Times that he had given 16 talks to health care groups in 2018, and he was due to speak to a health care investors’ group in 2020. But he would not comment on the record for this story.
Brett Coldiron, MD, a former president of the AAD, also has been critical. He believes investor-owners push for more biopsies, freezing of actinic keratoses, Moh’s surgery, and other well-paying procedures. “I’m convinced that private equity may be the undoing of our specialty,” Dr. Coldiron said in an interview.
In a paper titled, “Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices,” published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2019, Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, chief of the division of health policy and economics at New York’s Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues wrote that “private equity firms focus on specialties with high potential for additional income from elective procedures and ancillary services,” and that “dermatology has been a major focus” (Ann Intern Med. 2019;170[2]:114-5).
And in a viewpoint published in JAMA in February 2019, first-year medical student Suhas Gondi and Zirui Song, MD, PhD, both of Harvard Medical School, Boston, concluded that investor-owned practices could drive up overall health spending in part because they extract better reimbursement from insurers (JAMA. 2019;321[11]:1047-8).
Access could also become an issue if the companies drive smaller independent practices out of business, they wrote.
On the other hand, they said, “these investments may also benefit patients and bring more efficiency to a system burdened with waste.” The authors called for more research and “thoughtful regulation” to enhance the potential positives while mitigating the negatives.
So far, the acquisitions have largely escaped the notice of regulators or lawmakers. Congress has made noises about targeting specialty practices owned by private equity as a means of taming surprise medical bills, but that legislation has been stymied.
Dr. Coldiron is convinced that private investors will eventually be tripped up by state laws that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine.
Leslie Baumann, MD, who sold her Miami practice in October 2019 to the investor-owned Skin and Cancer Associates, said critics are too cynical. “What if these private equity firms are going to actually make our specialty better?” she asked in an interview.
What makes dermatology attractive?
Private equity has been acquiring specialty practices since at least 2009, with an acceleration over the last 5 years. Dermatology has been a frequent target, in part because so many dermatologists were in independent or small group private practices, making them ripe for takeover.
A 2015 report on the specialty by Cegedim, a company that provides information technology support to health care, found that the majority of practices had fewer than five physicians and that 57% of the practices were independent.
But more dermatologists are choosing employment. In a 2018 Medscape survey, 57% of dermatologists reported they were employed, while 49% were self-employed.
During 2013-2016, investors bought 35 dermatology practices – comprising 334 physicians, according to one study published in February (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:663-5). Investors bought 69 anesthesiology practices, 43 emergency medicine practices, and 39 family medicine practices during the same period.
Harvard’s Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song estimated that dermatology practices accounted for 15% of investor purchases in 2015 and 2016, even though dermatologists make up just 1% of U.S. clinicians.
In another paper published in JAMA Dermatology, Sally Tan, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Harvard medical and business schools, estimated that, in 2019, at least 184 practices, comprising 381 clinics, were owned by 17 private equity groups and that the acquisitions had been accelerating: from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017 to 34 in the first 5 months of 2018 (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1013-21).
“It’s a very attractive area for investors because they know that the future is bright for dermatology,” said Reuven Porges, MD, CEO of Ft. Lauderdale-based Skin and Cancer Associates, which is owned by a private investor. Because dermatology involves providing many ancillary services and cash-only cosmetic services, “it has tremendous potential to continue to be successful in the future regardless of what health care changes are coming,” Dr. Porges said in an interview.
Investors also see promise in dermatology in the United States because “there’s a huge supply demand mismatch,” said Vance Vanier, MD, a cofounding managing partner at Chicago Pacific Founders, the private equity owner of Pinnacle Dermatology, which has 52 locations in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Tennessee.
Theoretically, when investors handle billing, insurance negotiations, and health information technology, it gives clinicians more time to practice, Dr. Vanier said in an interview.
“Once that doctor is freed up to not do administrative tasks and focus on patient care, then, if they want to, they can see more patients and be more responsive to their needs,” he said.
Dr. Vanier said investor acquisitions are here to stay. “This is a trend that could go on for another 50 years before any saturation point is hit,” he said. “It’s a $2 trillion market. It’s hard to wrap your head around how enormous health care services is,” he said.
Dermatology acquisitions will be driven by the continuing imbalance of physician supply and patient demand; the financial pressure on newly graduating physicians who have big debt loads; the requirements for investment in health information technology to report quality metrics; and an aging population, Dr. Vanier said.
In a JAMA Dermatology viewpoint, Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, listed many of the same factors – plus a skin cancer epidemic – as fueling dermatology acquisitions (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[1]:13-4).
Medical practices – not just dermatology practices – also offer a pure financial play. “Acquisitions of smaller practices provide a major arbitrage opportunity,” Dr. Casalino and colleagues said in the January 2019 Annals of Internal Medicine paper. In a merger of smaller practices into larger, the smaller practice’s valuation immediately becomes that of the bigger one, they wrote.
Could the bottom fall out?
Creating giant groups through consolidation is a main aim for private equity.
Skin and Cancer Associates, founded in 1971, was a large entity, with 25 practices. But for a long time, its leaders had wanted to become a regional or a national player, said Dr. Porges. Those leaders asked Dr. Porges – who helped take his former radiology practice through a private equity purchase – to help them attract investors. In March 2018, Susquehanna Private Capital signed on as a “partner” with Skin and Cancer Associates.
It has since almost doubled in size, with 40 locations and 60 dermatologists, all in Florida, Dr. Porges said. “The only limiting factor for growing it as fast as we want, is really money,” he said.
Consolidation is just an initial step. Most investors have a finite timeline for cashing out. “The ultimate goal is often to realize a profitable secondary sale in three to seven years to another PE investor (or even a publicly traded entity),” Dr. Resneck wrote in the 2018 JAMA Dermatology paper.
Not all private equity companies are the same, said Dr. Wernli, of Forefront. Dermatologists can investigate a company’s “hold period” – how long they keep an investment before trading – and the strength of its capitalization before deciding to sell, she said.
Since 2016, Forefront has been owned by the Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System (OMERS), a pension fund for the province’s public workers. OMERS bought Forefront from Varsity Healthcare Partners, which had owned the dermatology group for just 2 years.
Dr. Wernli said OMERS is a good, solid investor. “They have unlimited resources to invest so they don’t have to quickly flip a company to satisfy an investment in another company,” she said.
Some investor-backed dermatology practices have gone belly up. In 2012, WestWind Investors bought DermOne, based in Toms River, N.J. But by early 2018, the business had fallen apart, and some practices – in North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia – just shut their doors.
Long Island City, N.Y.–based Schweiger Dermatology Group, backed by private equity, snapped up nine of the New Jersey DermOne practices in March 2018.
Another private equity–backed company, U.S. Dermatology Partners, defaulted on a $377 million loan in January 2020. As reported by Bloomberg, the company had $340 million in revenue in 2018. U.S. Dermatology’s owners are reportedly working out a recapitalization or debt-for-equity swap with the lenders.
Dr. Wernli said that financial problems aren’t unique to investor-owned practices and that doctors could still be out of a job if a private practice goes under.
“A private practice can also default on their loans that they’ve used to fund their own personal practice, leaving employed physicians in the same situation,” she said.
Patients are likely to be in the dark, however, until the doors close.
Pressure on practices
Private equity is changing the shape of practice for both those who work for investor-owned businesses and those still out on their own.
The Alabama dermatologist, for instance, said it has made it harder for him to recruit new doctors, who are offered big signing bonuses and a steady income by the investor-owned practices. “They’re skewing the numbers,” he said, adding that residents are now expecting a big payment and benefits.
Dr. Baumann said that when she was on her own, she had trouble finding and recruiting good dermatologists. But it has become easier since she’d sold to Skin and Cancer Associates, she said, noting that Dr. Porges recently found a qualified candidate for her to interview a week after she put in a request.
Another dermatologist in a Midwestern metropolitan practice – who did not want his name used – said that when it came time for him to increase his equity stake, his older partner, who was near retirement and had explored selling to private equity – wanted four-and-a-half times the price that had been discussed when he joined the practice.
The younger partner believes the private equity offers inflated the practice’s valuation in his partner’s mind. He ended up leaving the practice.
Many dermatologists have been led to believe that their practices are worth more than they might be, according to Dr. Coldiron. “I think a lot of these doctors that sell out are deluded. They think that they’re getting a lot of money and they’re not,” he said.
Typically, investors may offer three or four times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). The money paid out is taxed at the capital gains rate, which provides some savings. “But you have to pay that all back, because when they sign you up, you become an employee,” Dr. Coldiron said.
Doctors often agree to work for 5 years, but during that period, their base salary is decreased while the buyout cash is meted out to them, he added. A chunk of the buyout usually is also given as equity, but that equity is worthless unless the investor sells to another entity.
Pinnacle Dermatology doesn’t want doctors to retire immediately upon an acquisition, said Dr. Vanier of Chicago Pacific Founders. “We want to find physician partners who want to keep working,” he said. “We strongly believe if you don’t have strong physician leadership, experienced physician leadership, that your odds of success go down.”
Chicago Pacific also believes physicians should have an ownership interest, he said. It allows them to share in the eventual financial rewards – whether that’s 5 or 20 years later, said Dr. Vanier.
Dr. Coldiron sees other pressures that skew practice styles and can harm patient care. Clinicians in investor-owned practices are often urged to refer all dermatopathology to labs owned by the practice and often, a Moh’s surgeon is employed to service all the practices – sometimes even being flown in from elsewhere, he claimed.
That takes away the clinician’s autonomy in terms of referring where he or she feels appropriate and also could harm pathologists and Moh’s surgeons that depend on those referral streams, he added.
In their paper, Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song wrote that this practice is concerning because “keeping referrals within the practice may render referral patterns less responsive to patient needs or preference.”
Procedure factories?
Many critics say investor-backed practices are goosing revenues by hiring more mid-level providers – such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants – and getting them to perform more procedures.
Midlevel practitioners do more biopsies than dermatologists do to get a diagnosis, according to Dr. Coldiron.
A 2018 JAMA Dermatology study appears to back that up. Physician assistants needed to conduct 3.9 biopsies to diagnose one skin cancer, compared to 3.3 for dermatologists. For a single melanoma, the number needed to biopsy was 39.4 for PAs and 25.4 for dermatologists (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[5]:569-73).
Skin biopsies have almost doubled in the last decade, said Dr. Coldiron. “The skin cancer epidemic would account for only half of that,” he said.
“The ultimate loser is the patient – because the patient doesn’t get the highest quality care and the patient has unnecessary things done to him or her,” he said. But, he said, he could not directly tie the biopsy increase to the rise of private equity.
Forefront tracks the number of biopsies per patient done by every dermatologist in its network – to make sure that no one is outside the norms set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Dr. Wernli. And she said biopsies declined after the group was bought by private equity.
Dr. Baumann said the average number of biopsies per patient at Skin and Cancer Associates in 2019 was 0.20 – less than the 0.30 average reported by Medicare that same year.
The rising use of mid-level providers existed long before private equity came on the scene, said Dr. Wernli. “There’s not enough board-certified dermatologists to satisfy need,” she said, noting that, in addition, many clinicians won’t serve rural areas. “If we don’t move and extend ourselves, there will be someone who fills our shoes,” she said, adding that Forefront has 1 mid-level for every 1.5 to 2 dermatologists.
Skin and Cancer Associates has 55 doctors and 29 physician assistants, said Dr. Baumann, adding that she had not been pressured to add any mid-level providers to her practice.
Excitement about sale shot down
Dr. Wernli and Dr. Baumann both have been happy with their decision to ally with private equity. For Dr. Baumann, however, her move was tinged by online attacks that reflected the strong opinions on the topic.
She began looking into selling her practice when one of her businesses – Skin Type Solutions – began taking off. Both her clinical practice and research business were thriving. She had two children at home and was having a hard time keeping up with the administrative end of her businesses.
None of her partners nor any groups in Miami showed interest in purchasing the practice, so she began researching private equity. She spoke with seven companies before settling on Skin and Cancer Associates. They had “a long track record of successfully running practices,” said Dr. Baumann, adding that “the doctors who work there are happy, and I respect the quality of the physicians and the organization.”
When she closed the deal in October 2019, she agreed to stay on for 5 years and signed a noncompete clause that she deems “very reasonable.” Among the perks she cites: being able to consult via telemedicine with an expert on pigmented lesions; quick and easy referrals to a Moh’s surgeon; being able to train residents; and having paid personal time off.
It’s less responsibility and the same or better job satisfaction, she said.
But when she shared the news on a private Facebook group for board-certified dermatologists, she was vilified. Of some 195 comments, about half were “mean,” said Dr. Baumann.
“I was shocked about how strongly everybody feels,” she said. Those commenting accused her of doing it for the money or said that her move was contributing to the ruination of dermatology.
“I just defended myself,” she said. “For me, it was my time.”
Dr. Coldiron and Dr. Baumann are members of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.
The dermatologist had been in practice just a few years when he was approached by a private equity group. This was around 2015, when dermatology was just starting to buzz about investor buyouts. He was curious, so he agreed to meet with the company.
“They approached me with the idea that they could help me grow my practice, help my patients, and cut down overhead,” said the northern Alabama dermatologist, who asked that his name not be used. Over a lavish dinner, the investors lauded the clinician for his business acumen and for having built a great practice so quickly. They made an enticing buyout offer.
Before agreeing, he thought it over. He told the investors he wanted a few more years on his own before he’d consider a buyout. They encouraged him to think about it some more. He did, but the answer was still no.
Suddenly, the investors became aggressive and threatening. “They told me, ‘you have just made the biggest mistake of your early career. We’re going to make sure that our practice swallows you up, and if we can’t take you over and put you out of business, we’re going to buy up everyone around you so you can’t survive,’ ” said the dermatologist.
Surprisingly, the experience did not sour him on private equity – he even entertained a successor company’s offer. But he’s become more circumspect. “It has the potential to do good,” he said, adding that such financial support could help him pay employees, keep the lights on, and improve care. But the investors’ emphasis on profit is not appealing, he said.
“I’m going to have to have good proof that it’s truly going to improve patient care and outcomes. And I haven’t seen that yet,” he said.
Salvation or death sentence?
Depending on whom you ask, the continuing growth of private equity purchases of dermatology practices is either the death – or salvation – of the specialty.
Many dermatologists question whether the financial backers will invest in quality of care, or if they just will hire mid-level providers to churn out procedures to plump up revenues.
Neither the controversy nor the acquisitions show any sign of abating.
The American Academy of Dermatology has hosted debates on the topic at its annual meetings – and was to do so in 2020 until COVID-19 led to the meeting’s cancellation. AAD has not weighed in with any official policy and is not releasing data it may be collecting on the potential impact of private equity ownership. The organization provided a statement from President George J. Hruza, MD, who said, “the AAD supports a member’s right to choose the model that works best for them,” adding that the Academy “expects its members to provide safe and effective patient care, regardless of a dermatologist’s practice setting.” Dr. Hruza sold his Chesterfield, Mo., practice to United Skin Specialists, a private equity–backed company, in 2016, and still works at the same practice.
Some have said the acquisitions need to stop. “Until meaningful data are available on what happens to the quality of care and affordability for patients and payers, dermatologists should stop selling their practices to private equity firms, and legislators should prohibit such transactions,” wrote Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, and Jamar Slocum, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an editorial in July (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1007-8).
Although he acknowledged that he has not tracked the issue closely and that little data exist on the impact on quality or cost, Dr. Sharfstein has not changed his tune. “I think there are enough warning signs to say we should put the brakes on,” he said in an interview.
“For what reason?” asked Betsy Wernli, MD, president of Forefront Dermatology, an investor-owned group based in Manitowoc, Wis. She said it seems that “on this topic, we abandon our scientific foundations and default to emotion and anecdote,” she said in an interview. “Having capital, and an investor that supports us has allowed us to perform better patient care,” she said. Dermatologist variance across all practices and practice models should be cause for more concern, she added.
Sailesh Konda, MD, has been an outspoken critic. Dr. Konda, medical director and clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues detailed the complicated financial machinations of private equity in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. They showed that private investors seemed to hone in on buying outlier practices that performed high numbers of procedures. The paper – first made public in the fall of 2018 – created an uproar, especially among private equity companies. It was initially removed from the website in conjunction with a request from the editor that its conclusions be altered to be less harsh on private equity, according to the New York Times. The paper was eventually published in 2019 (J Am Acad Dermatol. Jul;81[1]:287-296.e8).
Dr. Konda has spoken at various dermatology forums and health care gatherings on private equity. He told the Times that he had given 16 talks to health care groups in 2018, and he was due to speak to a health care investors’ group in 2020. But he would not comment on the record for this story.
Brett Coldiron, MD, a former president of the AAD, also has been critical. He believes investor-owners push for more biopsies, freezing of actinic keratoses, Moh’s surgery, and other well-paying procedures. “I’m convinced that private equity may be the undoing of our specialty,” Dr. Coldiron said in an interview.
In a paper titled, “Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices,” published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2019, Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, chief of the division of health policy and economics at New York’s Weill Cornell Medicine, and colleagues wrote that “private equity firms focus on specialties with high potential for additional income from elective procedures and ancillary services,” and that “dermatology has been a major focus” (Ann Intern Med. 2019;170[2]:114-5).
And in a viewpoint published in JAMA in February 2019, first-year medical student Suhas Gondi and Zirui Song, MD, PhD, both of Harvard Medical School, Boston, concluded that investor-owned practices could drive up overall health spending in part because they extract better reimbursement from insurers (JAMA. 2019;321[11]:1047-8).
Access could also become an issue if the companies drive smaller independent practices out of business, they wrote.
On the other hand, they said, “these investments may also benefit patients and bring more efficiency to a system burdened with waste.” The authors called for more research and “thoughtful regulation” to enhance the potential positives while mitigating the negatives.
So far, the acquisitions have largely escaped the notice of regulators or lawmakers. Congress has made noises about targeting specialty practices owned by private equity as a means of taming surprise medical bills, but that legislation has been stymied.
Dr. Coldiron is convinced that private investors will eventually be tripped up by state laws that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine.
Leslie Baumann, MD, who sold her Miami practice in October 2019 to the investor-owned Skin and Cancer Associates, said critics are too cynical. “What if these private equity firms are going to actually make our specialty better?” she asked in an interview.
What makes dermatology attractive?
Private equity has been acquiring specialty practices since at least 2009, with an acceleration over the last 5 years. Dermatology has been a frequent target, in part because so many dermatologists were in independent or small group private practices, making them ripe for takeover.
A 2015 report on the specialty by Cegedim, a company that provides information technology support to health care, found that the majority of practices had fewer than five physicians and that 57% of the practices were independent.
But more dermatologists are choosing employment. In a 2018 Medscape survey, 57% of dermatologists reported they were employed, while 49% were self-employed.
During 2013-2016, investors bought 35 dermatology practices – comprising 334 physicians, according to one study published in February (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:663-5). Investors bought 69 anesthesiology practices, 43 emergency medicine practices, and 39 family medicine practices during the same period.
Harvard’s Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song estimated that dermatology practices accounted for 15% of investor purchases in 2015 and 2016, even though dermatologists make up just 1% of U.S. clinicians.
In another paper published in JAMA Dermatology, Sally Tan, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Harvard medical and business schools, estimated that, in 2019, at least 184 practices, comprising 381 clinics, were owned by 17 private equity groups and that the acquisitions had been accelerating: from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017 to 34 in the first 5 months of 2018 (JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155[9]:1013-21).
“It’s a very attractive area for investors because they know that the future is bright for dermatology,” said Reuven Porges, MD, CEO of Ft. Lauderdale-based Skin and Cancer Associates, which is owned by a private investor. Because dermatology involves providing many ancillary services and cash-only cosmetic services, “it has tremendous potential to continue to be successful in the future regardless of what health care changes are coming,” Dr. Porges said in an interview.
Investors also see promise in dermatology in the United States because “there’s a huge supply demand mismatch,” said Vance Vanier, MD, a cofounding managing partner at Chicago Pacific Founders, the private equity owner of Pinnacle Dermatology, which has 52 locations in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Tennessee.
Theoretically, when investors handle billing, insurance negotiations, and health information technology, it gives clinicians more time to practice, Dr. Vanier said in an interview.
“Once that doctor is freed up to not do administrative tasks and focus on patient care, then, if they want to, they can see more patients and be more responsive to their needs,” he said.
Dr. Vanier said investor acquisitions are here to stay. “This is a trend that could go on for another 50 years before any saturation point is hit,” he said. “It’s a $2 trillion market. It’s hard to wrap your head around how enormous health care services is,” he said.
Dermatology acquisitions will be driven by the continuing imbalance of physician supply and patient demand; the financial pressure on newly graduating physicians who have big debt loads; the requirements for investment in health information technology to report quality metrics; and an aging population, Dr. Vanier said.
In a JAMA Dermatology viewpoint, Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, listed many of the same factors – plus a skin cancer epidemic – as fueling dermatology acquisitions (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[1]:13-4).
Medical practices – not just dermatology practices – also offer a pure financial play. “Acquisitions of smaller practices provide a major arbitrage opportunity,” Dr. Casalino and colleagues said in the January 2019 Annals of Internal Medicine paper. In a merger of smaller practices into larger, the smaller practice’s valuation immediately becomes that of the bigger one, they wrote.
Could the bottom fall out?
Creating giant groups through consolidation is a main aim for private equity.
Skin and Cancer Associates, founded in 1971, was a large entity, with 25 practices. But for a long time, its leaders had wanted to become a regional or a national player, said Dr. Porges. Those leaders asked Dr. Porges – who helped take his former radiology practice through a private equity purchase – to help them attract investors. In March 2018, Susquehanna Private Capital signed on as a “partner” with Skin and Cancer Associates.
It has since almost doubled in size, with 40 locations and 60 dermatologists, all in Florida, Dr. Porges said. “The only limiting factor for growing it as fast as we want, is really money,” he said.
Consolidation is just an initial step. Most investors have a finite timeline for cashing out. “The ultimate goal is often to realize a profitable secondary sale in three to seven years to another PE investor (or even a publicly traded entity),” Dr. Resneck wrote in the 2018 JAMA Dermatology paper.
Not all private equity companies are the same, said Dr. Wernli, of Forefront. Dermatologists can investigate a company’s “hold period” – how long they keep an investment before trading – and the strength of its capitalization before deciding to sell, she said.
Since 2016, Forefront has been owned by the Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System (OMERS), a pension fund for the province’s public workers. OMERS bought Forefront from Varsity Healthcare Partners, which had owned the dermatology group for just 2 years.
Dr. Wernli said OMERS is a good, solid investor. “They have unlimited resources to invest so they don’t have to quickly flip a company to satisfy an investment in another company,” she said.
Some investor-backed dermatology practices have gone belly up. In 2012, WestWind Investors bought DermOne, based in Toms River, N.J. But by early 2018, the business had fallen apart, and some practices – in North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia – just shut their doors.
Long Island City, N.Y.–based Schweiger Dermatology Group, backed by private equity, snapped up nine of the New Jersey DermOne practices in March 2018.
Another private equity–backed company, U.S. Dermatology Partners, defaulted on a $377 million loan in January 2020. As reported by Bloomberg, the company had $340 million in revenue in 2018. U.S. Dermatology’s owners are reportedly working out a recapitalization or debt-for-equity swap with the lenders.
Dr. Wernli said that financial problems aren’t unique to investor-owned practices and that doctors could still be out of a job if a private practice goes under.
“A private practice can also default on their loans that they’ve used to fund their own personal practice, leaving employed physicians in the same situation,” she said.
Patients are likely to be in the dark, however, until the doors close.
Pressure on practices
Private equity is changing the shape of practice for both those who work for investor-owned businesses and those still out on their own.
The Alabama dermatologist, for instance, said it has made it harder for him to recruit new doctors, who are offered big signing bonuses and a steady income by the investor-owned practices. “They’re skewing the numbers,” he said, adding that residents are now expecting a big payment and benefits.
Dr. Baumann said that when she was on her own, she had trouble finding and recruiting good dermatologists. But it has become easier since she’d sold to Skin and Cancer Associates, she said, noting that Dr. Porges recently found a qualified candidate for her to interview a week after she put in a request.
Another dermatologist in a Midwestern metropolitan practice – who did not want his name used – said that when it came time for him to increase his equity stake, his older partner, who was near retirement and had explored selling to private equity – wanted four-and-a-half times the price that had been discussed when he joined the practice.
The younger partner believes the private equity offers inflated the practice’s valuation in his partner’s mind. He ended up leaving the practice.
Many dermatologists have been led to believe that their practices are worth more than they might be, according to Dr. Coldiron. “I think a lot of these doctors that sell out are deluded. They think that they’re getting a lot of money and they’re not,” he said.
Typically, investors may offer three or four times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). The money paid out is taxed at the capital gains rate, which provides some savings. “But you have to pay that all back, because when they sign you up, you become an employee,” Dr. Coldiron said.
Doctors often agree to work for 5 years, but during that period, their base salary is decreased while the buyout cash is meted out to them, he added. A chunk of the buyout usually is also given as equity, but that equity is worthless unless the investor sells to another entity.
Pinnacle Dermatology doesn’t want doctors to retire immediately upon an acquisition, said Dr. Vanier of Chicago Pacific Founders. “We want to find physician partners who want to keep working,” he said. “We strongly believe if you don’t have strong physician leadership, experienced physician leadership, that your odds of success go down.”
Chicago Pacific also believes physicians should have an ownership interest, he said. It allows them to share in the eventual financial rewards – whether that’s 5 or 20 years later, said Dr. Vanier.
Dr. Coldiron sees other pressures that skew practice styles and can harm patient care. Clinicians in investor-owned practices are often urged to refer all dermatopathology to labs owned by the practice and often, a Moh’s surgeon is employed to service all the practices – sometimes even being flown in from elsewhere, he claimed.
That takes away the clinician’s autonomy in terms of referring where he or she feels appropriate and also could harm pathologists and Moh’s surgeons that depend on those referral streams, he added.
In their paper, Mr. Gondi and Dr. Song wrote that this practice is concerning because “keeping referrals within the practice may render referral patterns less responsive to patient needs or preference.”
Procedure factories?
Many critics say investor-backed practices are goosing revenues by hiring more mid-level providers – such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants – and getting them to perform more procedures.
Midlevel practitioners do more biopsies than dermatologists do to get a diagnosis, according to Dr. Coldiron.
A 2018 JAMA Dermatology study appears to back that up. Physician assistants needed to conduct 3.9 biopsies to diagnose one skin cancer, compared to 3.3 for dermatologists. For a single melanoma, the number needed to biopsy was 39.4 for PAs and 25.4 for dermatologists (JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154[5]:569-73).
Skin biopsies have almost doubled in the last decade, said Dr. Coldiron. “The skin cancer epidemic would account for only half of that,” he said.
“The ultimate loser is the patient – because the patient doesn’t get the highest quality care and the patient has unnecessary things done to him or her,” he said. But, he said, he could not directly tie the biopsy increase to the rise of private equity.
Forefront tracks the number of biopsies per patient done by every dermatologist in its network – to make sure that no one is outside the norms set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Dr. Wernli. And she said biopsies declined after the group was bought by private equity.
Dr. Baumann said the average number of biopsies per patient at Skin and Cancer Associates in 2019 was 0.20 – less than the 0.30 average reported by Medicare that same year.
The rising use of mid-level providers existed long before private equity came on the scene, said Dr. Wernli. “There’s not enough board-certified dermatologists to satisfy need,” she said, noting that, in addition, many clinicians won’t serve rural areas. “If we don’t move and extend ourselves, there will be someone who fills our shoes,” she said, adding that Forefront has 1 mid-level for every 1.5 to 2 dermatologists.
Skin and Cancer Associates has 55 doctors and 29 physician assistants, said Dr. Baumann, adding that she had not been pressured to add any mid-level providers to her practice.
Excitement about sale shot down
Dr. Wernli and Dr. Baumann both have been happy with their decision to ally with private equity. For Dr. Baumann, however, her move was tinged by online attacks that reflected the strong opinions on the topic.
She began looking into selling her practice when one of her businesses – Skin Type Solutions – began taking off. Both her clinical practice and research business were thriving. She had two children at home and was having a hard time keeping up with the administrative end of her businesses.
None of her partners nor any groups in Miami showed interest in purchasing the practice, so she began researching private equity. She spoke with seven companies before settling on Skin and Cancer Associates. They had “a long track record of successfully running practices,” said Dr. Baumann, adding that “the doctors who work there are happy, and I respect the quality of the physicians and the organization.”
When she closed the deal in October 2019, she agreed to stay on for 5 years and signed a noncompete clause that she deems “very reasonable.” Among the perks she cites: being able to consult via telemedicine with an expert on pigmented lesions; quick and easy referrals to a Moh’s surgeon; being able to train residents; and having paid personal time off.
It’s less responsibility and the same or better job satisfaction, she said.
But when she shared the news on a private Facebook group for board-certified dermatologists, she was vilified. Of some 195 comments, about half were “mean,” said Dr. Baumann.
“I was shocked about how strongly everybody feels,” she said. Those commenting accused her of doing it for the money or said that her move was contributing to the ruination of dermatology.
“I just defended myself,” she said. “For me, it was my time.”
Dr. Coldiron and Dr. Baumann are members of the Dermatology News editorial advisory board.
During a pandemic, infusion center nursing team pitches in to keep patients on track
How do you run a chemotherapy infusion center during a pandemic?
Quick action, innovative staffing solutions, and nimble leadership are allowing one cancer center to continue providing care for the most vulnerable patients, while keeping patients and staff safe.
When nursing leaders at Atrium Health’s Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., realized that business was not going to continue as usual for American health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, they knew they had to act quickly to keep the institute’s 82-chair infusion center up and running.
North Carolina had already imposed restrictions on mass gatherings and closed educational facilities and some businesses by mid-March. Stay-at-home orders were being issued in surrounding states (North Carolina came under a statewide order on March 30). Physical distancing and a healthy, resilient team were prerequisites to an effective COVID-19 solution for the infusion clinic, said Angela Hosking, MBA, MSN, RN, director of nursing for Levine Cancer Institute. In an interview, she said that, at meetings on Monday, March 23, “we divided the team exactly in half.”
Infusion center staff members were broken into an “A” and a “B” rotation, with each team either on site or remotely for a 14-day stretch, and then switching at the 2-week mark. The 14-day rotation, she said, was chosen so that each cohort would have a full 2 weeks away after having been in clinic to ensure they were symptom free before returning. The cohorting scheme also serves to minimize between-staff exposure and risk of transmission.
These changes were implemented immediately, said Ms. Hosking, and included all but the most senior leadership – Ms. Hosking alternates days on site with another senior colleague to help with continuity.
Infusion center patients were triaged to determine “who absolutely needed to be seen,” and clinic staff started making phone calls and reshuffling the schedule so the clinic could continue at half-strength staffing.
The clinic was rearranged to ensure each infusion chair had appropriate space but the nursing work flow was still safe with reduced staff, said Jessica Stewart, MSN, RN, Levine Cancer Institute’s hematology–sickle cell nurse manager.
Patients were receptive, said Ms. Stewart. The team that was working remotely made sure all patients were called the day before their appointments, so they could understand what to expect when they arrived. Any needed updates to the medical history and patient teaching can also be done over the phone the day before the visit, she said, noting that patients are also queried about any concerning symptoms such as fever or cough.
In the spirit of providing information and managing expectations, patients are also informed that they will not be able to bring a visitor along and are advised to expect additional screening when they arrive. In addition to a repeat of symptom screening, patients are checked for fever with a temporal thermometer.
Any patient who arrives reporting symptoms or who has a fever is then subject to additional screening. Physician phone consultation is available, if needed, and patients may be routed to a drive-through screening and testing setup, or to the ED if there are concerns the patient may be seriously ill.
Several weeks into the new operations, Ms. Stewart said, “we’ve fine-tuned the processes we currently have in place. There’s new practices with virtual visits to make reaching our patients easier. Our senior leadership is communicating in a weekly video sent to all [Levine Cancer Institute] teammates for updates; it’s very transparent and the team is appreciative of being kept in the loop.”
Thus far, said Ms. Hosking, “it’s gone well – we’ve successfully operationalized this plan. … I think it shows that people that care about each other and their mission can collaborate with each other” to make change happen in a hurry.
Though it’s too soon to know exactly what the future holds once the pandemic has passed, some aspects of the new way of doing things may carry forward, said Ms. Stewart. “Communication has been massively streamlined,” and staff has found the previsit phone calls an efficient and effective way to gather and impart information.
A staff nurse at the infusion center, Whitney Hollifield, RN, added that patients have seen – and appreciate – the added precautions taken by all. “I feel that we have done well with protecting our patients from unneeded exposure and patients have expressed this to me,” said Ms. Hollifield. “They have said: ‘Thank you for doing this because I am scared to come in right now so I appreciate that your office is thinking of protecting us.’ ”
Ms. Hollifield added that “patients have been very responsive to our strategy for their care because we are truly concerned for them and I think that this shows. I believe that we are doing everything we can to keep them safe during a tumultuous time, and they feel genuine care for them during a frightening time is reassuring.”
On the practical side of things, Ms. Stewart noted, patients and families have provided infusion center staff with a seemingly endless supply of food: “We have never been more well fed!”
Rhonda Davis, RN, is a nurse at the Levine Cancer Institute. Speaking of the changes that have been made in recent weeks, she said, “Some of the changes that I think have been meaningful these last 3 weeks are making sure that the patients are the No. 1 priority. We are doing this by allowing patients options such as phone and virtual visits. This helps patients have some control over their health during this scary time for all.”
Ms. Davis acknowledged her own feelings about the uncertain times ahead. “As an individual with good health, I am scared, so to imagine the fear that these patients are facing must be overwhelming to them. Along that line, one of the most meaningful things that has happened for me is calling patients and having them concerned about my health and telling me to be safe.”
Despite her trepidation, she said, it’s meaningful for her to hear from patients who are in the clinic that they appreciate her presence. She found it heartening “that they are also considering our safety as well as their own.”
The two-cohort scheme has been well received by nursing staff, both administrators and clinic staff agreed. “I think that allowing staff to work 2 weeks on and 2 weeks at home helps keep patients and teammates safe,” Ms. Davis said.
Another infusion nurse, Ursel Wallace, RN, said that she appreciated the speed and efficiency with which the pandemic adaptations were made, including the nuts and bolts of reshuffling a complicated infusion schedule. “I know there were many different moving parts and it took a village” to move with such alacrity without dropping balls, she said.
The infusion nursing team’s spirit was summed up by Patricia Ashworth, RN: “Together, we will prevail!”
koakes@mdedge.com
How do you run a chemotherapy infusion center during a pandemic?
Quick action, innovative staffing solutions, and nimble leadership are allowing one cancer center to continue providing care for the most vulnerable patients, while keeping patients and staff safe.
When nursing leaders at Atrium Health’s Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., realized that business was not going to continue as usual for American health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, they knew they had to act quickly to keep the institute’s 82-chair infusion center up and running.
North Carolina had already imposed restrictions on mass gatherings and closed educational facilities and some businesses by mid-March. Stay-at-home orders were being issued in surrounding states (North Carolina came under a statewide order on March 30). Physical distancing and a healthy, resilient team were prerequisites to an effective COVID-19 solution for the infusion clinic, said Angela Hosking, MBA, MSN, RN, director of nursing for Levine Cancer Institute. In an interview, she said that, at meetings on Monday, March 23, “we divided the team exactly in half.”
Infusion center staff members were broken into an “A” and a “B” rotation, with each team either on site or remotely for a 14-day stretch, and then switching at the 2-week mark. The 14-day rotation, she said, was chosen so that each cohort would have a full 2 weeks away after having been in clinic to ensure they were symptom free before returning. The cohorting scheme also serves to minimize between-staff exposure and risk of transmission.
These changes were implemented immediately, said Ms. Hosking, and included all but the most senior leadership – Ms. Hosking alternates days on site with another senior colleague to help with continuity.
Infusion center patients were triaged to determine “who absolutely needed to be seen,” and clinic staff started making phone calls and reshuffling the schedule so the clinic could continue at half-strength staffing.
The clinic was rearranged to ensure each infusion chair had appropriate space but the nursing work flow was still safe with reduced staff, said Jessica Stewart, MSN, RN, Levine Cancer Institute’s hematology–sickle cell nurse manager.
Patients were receptive, said Ms. Stewart. The team that was working remotely made sure all patients were called the day before their appointments, so they could understand what to expect when they arrived. Any needed updates to the medical history and patient teaching can also be done over the phone the day before the visit, she said, noting that patients are also queried about any concerning symptoms such as fever or cough.
In the spirit of providing information and managing expectations, patients are also informed that they will not be able to bring a visitor along and are advised to expect additional screening when they arrive. In addition to a repeat of symptom screening, patients are checked for fever with a temporal thermometer.
Any patient who arrives reporting symptoms or who has a fever is then subject to additional screening. Physician phone consultation is available, if needed, and patients may be routed to a drive-through screening and testing setup, or to the ED if there are concerns the patient may be seriously ill.
Several weeks into the new operations, Ms. Stewart said, “we’ve fine-tuned the processes we currently have in place. There’s new practices with virtual visits to make reaching our patients easier. Our senior leadership is communicating in a weekly video sent to all [Levine Cancer Institute] teammates for updates; it’s very transparent and the team is appreciative of being kept in the loop.”
Thus far, said Ms. Hosking, “it’s gone well – we’ve successfully operationalized this plan. … I think it shows that people that care about each other and their mission can collaborate with each other” to make change happen in a hurry.
Though it’s too soon to know exactly what the future holds once the pandemic has passed, some aspects of the new way of doing things may carry forward, said Ms. Stewart. “Communication has been massively streamlined,” and staff has found the previsit phone calls an efficient and effective way to gather and impart information.
A staff nurse at the infusion center, Whitney Hollifield, RN, added that patients have seen – and appreciate – the added precautions taken by all. “I feel that we have done well with protecting our patients from unneeded exposure and patients have expressed this to me,” said Ms. Hollifield. “They have said: ‘Thank you for doing this because I am scared to come in right now so I appreciate that your office is thinking of protecting us.’ ”
Ms. Hollifield added that “patients have been very responsive to our strategy for their care because we are truly concerned for them and I think that this shows. I believe that we are doing everything we can to keep them safe during a tumultuous time, and they feel genuine care for them during a frightening time is reassuring.”
On the practical side of things, Ms. Stewart noted, patients and families have provided infusion center staff with a seemingly endless supply of food: “We have never been more well fed!”
Rhonda Davis, RN, is a nurse at the Levine Cancer Institute. Speaking of the changes that have been made in recent weeks, she said, “Some of the changes that I think have been meaningful these last 3 weeks are making sure that the patients are the No. 1 priority. We are doing this by allowing patients options such as phone and virtual visits. This helps patients have some control over their health during this scary time for all.”
Ms. Davis acknowledged her own feelings about the uncertain times ahead. “As an individual with good health, I am scared, so to imagine the fear that these patients are facing must be overwhelming to them. Along that line, one of the most meaningful things that has happened for me is calling patients and having them concerned about my health and telling me to be safe.”
Despite her trepidation, she said, it’s meaningful for her to hear from patients who are in the clinic that they appreciate her presence. She found it heartening “that they are also considering our safety as well as their own.”
The two-cohort scheme has been well received by nursing staff, both administrators and clinic staff agreed. “I think that allowing staff to work 2 weeks on and 2 weeks at home helps keep patients and teammates safe,” Ms. Davis said.
Another infusion nurse, Ursel Wallace, RN, said that she appreciated the speed and efficiency with which the pandemic adaptations were made, including the nuts and bolts of reshuffling a complicated infusion schedule. “I know there were many different moving parts and it took a village” to move with such alacrity without dropping balls, she said.
The infusion nursing team’s spirit was summed up by Patricia Ashworth, RN: “Together, we will prevail!”
koakes@mdedge.com
How do you run a chemotherapy infusion center during a pandemic?
Quick action, innovative staffing solutions, and nimble leadership are allowing one cancer center to continue providing care for the most vulnerable patients, while keeping patients and staff safe.
When nursing leaders at Atrium Health’s Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, N.C., realized that business was not going to continue as usual for American health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, they knew they had to act quickly to keep the institute’s 82-chair infusion center up and running.
North Carolina had already imposed restrictions on mass gatherings and closed educational facilities and some businesses by mid-March. Stay-at-home orders were being issued in surrounding states (North Carolina came under a statewide order on March 30). Physical distancing and a healthy, resilient team were prerequisites to an effective COVID-19 solution for the infusion clinic, said Angela Hosking, MBA, MSN, RN, director of nursing for Levine Cancer Institute. In an interview, she said that, at meetings on Monday, March 23, “we divided the team exactly in half.”
Infusion center staff members were broken into an “A” and a “B” rotation, with each team either on site or remotely for a 14-day stretch, and then switching at the 2-week mark. The 14-day rotation, she said, was chosen so that each cohort would have a full 2 weeks away after having been in clinic to ensure they were symptom free before returning. The cohorting scheme also serves to minimize between-staff exposure and risk of transmission.
These changes were implemented immediately, said Ms. Hosking, and included all but the most senior leadership – Ms. Hosking alternates days on site with another senior colleague to help with continuity.
Infusion center patients were triaged to determine “who absolutely needed to be seen,” and clinic staff started making phone calls and reshuffling the schedule so the clinic could continue at half-strength staffing.
The clinic was rearranged to ensure each infusion chair had appropriate space but the nursing work flow was still safe with reduced staff, said Jessica Stewart, MSN, RN, Levine Cancer Institute’s hematology–sickle cell nurse manager.
Patients were receptive, said Ms. Stewart. The team that was working remotely made sure all patients were called the day before their appointments, so they could understand what to expect when they arrived. Any needed updates to the medical history and patient teaching can also be done over the phone the day before the visit, she said, noting that patients are also queried about any concerning symptoms such as fever or cough.
In the spirit of providing information and managing expectations, patients are also informed that they will not be able to bring a visitor along and are advised to expect additional screening when they arrive. In addition to a repeat of symptom screening, patients are checked for fever with a temporal thermometer.
Any patient who arrives reporting symptoms or who has a fever is then subject to additional screening. Physician phone consultation is available, if needed, and patients may be routed to a drive-through screening and testing setup, or to the ED if there are concerns the patient may be seriously ill.
Several weeks into the new operations, Ms. Stewart said, “we’ve fine-tuned the processes we currently have in place. There’s new practices with virtual visits to make reaching our patients easier. Our senior leadership is communicating in a weekly video sent to all [Levine Cancer Institute] teammates for updates; it’s very transparent and the team is appreciative of being kept in the loop.”
Thus far, said Ms. Hosking, “it’s gone well – we’ve successfully operationalized this plan. … I think it shows that people that care about each other and their mission can collaborate with each other” to make change happen in a hurry.
Though it’s too soon to know exactly what the future holds once the pandemic has passed, some aspects of the new way of doing things may carry forward, said Ms. Stewart. “Communication has been massively streamlined,” and staff has found the previsit phone calls an efficient and effective way to gather and impart information.
A staff nurse at the infusion center, Whitney Hollifield, RN, added that patients have seen – and appreciate – the added precautions taken by all. “I feel that we have done well with protecting our patients from unneeded exposure and patients have expressed this to me,” said Ms. Hollifield. “They have said: ‘Thank you for doing this because I am scared to come in right now so I appreciate that your office is thinking of protecting us.’ ”
Ms. Hollifield added that “patients have been very responsive to our strategy for their care because we are truly concerned for them and I think that this shows. I believe that we are doing everything we can to keep them safe during a tumultuous time, and they feel genuine care for them during a frightening time is reassuring.”
On the practical side of things, Ms. Stewart noted, patients and families have provided infusion center staff with a seemingly endless supply of food: “We have never been more well fed!”
Rhonda Davis, RN, is a nurse at the Levine Cancer Institute. Speaking of the changes that have been made in recent weeks, she said, “Some of the changes that I think have been meaningful these last 3 weeks are making sure that the patients are the No. 1 priority. We are doing this by allowing patients options such as phone and virtual visits. This helps patients have some control over their health during this scary time for all.”
Ms. Davis acknowledged her own feelings about the uncertain times ahead. “As an individual with good health, I am scared, so to imagine the fear that these patients are facing must be overwhelming to them. Along that line, one of the most meaningful things that has happened for me is calling patients and having them concerned about my health and telling me to be safe.”
Despite her trepidation, she said, it’s meaningful for her to hear from patients who are in the clinic that they appreciate her presence. She found it heartening “that they are also considering our safety as well as their own.”
The two-cohort scheme has been well received by nursing staff, both administrators and clinic staff agreed. “I think that allowing staff to work 2 weeks on and 2 weeks at home helps keep patients and teammates safe,” Ms. Davis said.
Another infusion nurse, Ursel Wallace, RN, said that she appreciated the speed and efficiency with which the pandemic adaptations were made, including the nuts and bolts of reshuffling a complicated infusion schedule. “I know there were many different moving parts and it took a village” to move with such alacrity without dropping balls, she said.
The infusion nursing team’s spirit was summed up by Patricia Ashworth, RN: “Together, we will prevail!”
koakes@mdedge.com
Latest data on COVID-19 patients with rheumatic diseases revealed in registry
An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.
The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.
Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”
The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.
The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.
Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”
One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.
“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.
According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
Results from the global and UCSF registries
As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).
The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.
The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
EULAR registry results
As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.
The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.
Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.
The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.
Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”
The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.
The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.
Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”
One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.
“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.
According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
Results from the global and UCSF registries
As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).
The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.
The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
EULAR registry results
As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.
The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.
Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.
The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.
Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”
The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.
The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.
Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”
One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.
“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.
According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
Results from the global and UCSF registries
As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).
The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.
The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
EULAR registry results
As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.
The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.
Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
COVID-19 & Mental Health
Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.
Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.
Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”
In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.
Topics of Conversation
Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?
About Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).
About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar
Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.
Resources
- Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
- Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
- COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
- Overcoming COVID-related stress
- Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
- Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
- Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.
Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.
Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”
In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.
Topics of Conversation
Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?
About Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).
About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar
Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.
Resources
- Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
- Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
- COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
- Overcoming COVID-related stress
- Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
- Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
- Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 8:30 p.m. EST as we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the mental health of psychiatry patients and providers around the world.
Our special guests include two psychiatry educators with expertise in therapeutic psychotherapy and solutions on how to help our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19, Dinah Miller, MD (@shrinkraphdinah), and Elizabeth Ryznar, MD (@RyznarMD). We hope you will participate in our Twitter chat this evening, at 8:30 p.m. EST on #MDedgeChats.
Public health emergencies can affect the well-being of individuals and communities causing possible feelings of insecurity, confusion, and emotional isolation. These effects may translate into a range of emotional reactions affecting current psychiatric conditions and creating new ones, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “nearly 45% of adults across the country say that worry and stress related to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting their mental health.”
In this chat, we will discuss this topic and how COVID-19 is affecting your patients and practice. Join us tonight and feel free to share what you have experienced during this pandemic at 8:30 pm EST on #MDedgeChats.
Topics of Conversation
Question 1: How are pre-pandemic patients doing during the crisis?
Question 2: How has COVID-19 affected inpatient and outpatient care for you?
Question 3: How are our most vulnerable populations being affected by COVID-19?
Question 4: How are you doing personally and professionally as a medical professional and psychiatrist amidst this pandemic?
Question 5: What psychiatric manifestations are you seeing in your patients who have had COVID-19?
About Dr. Dinah Miller
Dr. Dinah Miller (@shrinkrapdinah) a psychiatrist with a private practice and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller is also a columnist for and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Clinical Psychiatry News. She is the co-author of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016) and “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2011).
About Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar
Dr. Elizabeth Ryznar (@RyznarMD) is a psychiatry clinician-educator research fellow and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She completed her medical training at Harvard Medical School in Boston and her residency training at Northwestern University in Chicago. Dr. Ryznar is co-editor of the new book “Landmark Papers in Psychiatry,” published by Oxford University Press, and has several peer-reviewed articles.
Resources
- Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic
- Brief examines the COVID-19 crisis’ implications for Americans’ mental health
- COVID-19: Helping health care workers on the front lines
- Overcoming COVID-related stress
- Confessions of an outpatient psychiatrist during the pandemic
- Psychiatric patients may be among the hardest hit
- Experts hasten to head off mental health crisis
COVID-19: Helping health care workers on front lines
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards.
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Psychiatrists are intervening with less conventional strategies
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards.
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
Across the country, psychiatrists are stepping up to provide urgent care to fellow health care workers in need amid the coronavirus pandemic. They’re offering stress management strategies, spearheading unusual partnerships, and discovering that psychotherapy and medication might not be their most helpful tools to help their colleagues at this time.
“This is completely the opposite of the way we practice psychiatry,” said Allison Cotton, MD, of the University of Nevada, Reno. “Our interventions are quite different from a psychotherapeutic standpoint.”
In March, she worked with four colleagues, Suzan Song, MD, MPH, PhD; Ben Cheng, MD; Smita Gautam, MD; and Mona S. Masood, DO, to create the Physician Support Line, a confidential and free hotline that links physicians to volunteer psychiatrists who are available to listen and offer advice on coping. The hotline (888-409-0141) is available every day from 8 a.m. to midnight Eastern time. Calls typically take 15-45 minutes; no appointment is needed, and conversations are not reportable to state medical boards.
“The calls can be very intense,” Dr. Cotton said, and they’re unusual for several reasons. The hotline is not like a suicide or crisis hotline, when “a person calls because they need help, and then they can go get that help – they go to the hospital and get admitted to a psychiatric unit. Our callers don’t have that luxury.”
It’s also impossible to take an extensive history and create a sophisticated, long-term treatment plan as psychiatrists would during normal office visits. At the hotline, Dr. Cotton said, “we’re really focusing on the caller’s strengths and helping them come up with a plan for today to get through whatever they’re facing,” she said.
Stress management is critical
Psychiatrists at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus are embracing a similar approach to help health care workers cope, said Steven Berkowitz, MD. “We focus on stress management, and the notion that they are generally healthy and understandably struggling with extraordinary circumstances,” he said. “We are conservative in our use of medications and really only prescribe medications, such as trazodone, to help with sleep. We do not use benzodiazepines unless there is a history of more severe psychiatric problems.”
The pressure on health care workers during the pandemic is intense. A survey of 1,257 workers in 34 Chinese hospitals found high levels of symptoms of depression (50%), anxiety (45%), insomnia (35%), and distress (72%). Several groups appeared to be more vulnerable: women, nurses, front-line health care workers, and those in the coronavirus-stricken city of Wuhan (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[3]:e203976).
In Colorado, “providers are depleted,” Dr. Berkowitz said. “We are hearing about sleep disturbances and even some traumatic nightmares from ICU staff. During our support sessions, tears come most frequently when they talk about the struggle to care for their families and how they’re putting them at risk.”
Also, he said, “one of the most upsetting issues has been around language and cultural issues. Because of the language barriers, providers cannot explain why families can’t be with their sick members, which has led to acrimony.”
Guilt is a prevailing theme
Guilt also is a common emotion among health care workers, said psychiatrist Tia Konzer, DO, of Charlotte, N.C. “The ones on the front line question whether they were able to do enough to save someone or if they could have done more. Those of us not on the front lines feel guilty that we’re not there with our colleagues, that we don’t face the same fears and are in the safety of our outpatient clinics.”
The focus on social distancing is creating its own strains, she said. “A lot of people are recognizing the power of human touch and how comforting that is,” she said. “The healers aren’t able to comfort the loved ones of the deceased, and we’re not able to comfort each other. And people are having a hard time not being able to hug their kids and their spouses, having to ward off their kids when they come home or avoid them until they’ve showered.”
How can mental health professionals be most helpful to health care workers in need? The simple act of listening is crucial, several such professionals said in interviews.
“Your main job is to bear witness to their experiences and to hear their story, then secondarily to make sure they have a basic self-care plan to recover from what they’re doing each day,” said psychologist Leah Welch, PhD, of the Scripps Health network in San Diego. “Don’t talk too much or try to give advice too quickly before you’ve listened to what the caregiver has shared. They’re accumulating small traumas and need time and space to sort them out, and that takes patience and a listening ear on the part of the provider. Rushing in too quickly with advice deprives them of making sense of their own experience.”
She added that “they should also be thanked for what they’re doing, because it requires skill, empathy, and courage. They are being heroic, and they need to know they’re appreciated by those of us not on the front lines for what they’re putting themselves through.”
Partnerships are forming
At Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, psychiatry chief Lisa Fortuna, MD, MPH, MDiv, said her team has had success by working closely with the hospital’s chaplains. “A lot of the staff are not saying: ‘We’re stressing out; help us.’ The chaplains had starting rounding, asking how they’re doing, and they’d open up because there was already a relationship. The chaplains are very well trained in dealing with being support for people under situations of death, loss, and immediate stress.”
The chaplains themselves became overwhelmed, and the hospital responded by reaching out to bring in more chaplains. The psychiatry team, meanwhile, worked to partner with the chaplains to provide a continuum of support for staff. “We have an opportunity to build on the trust that they have,” said Dr. Fortuna, who is an ordained Episcopal minister. “They’re the perfect partners.”
What happens now? Dr. Fortuna has seen the long-term aftermath of a crisis. She previously worked in Massachusetts and helped to support health care workers in that state after the Boston Marathon bombing.
She cautioned that health care workers may first run on adrenaline in a crisis, spurred by “heroic high energy.” But then, the full extent of the tragedy begins to set in, and they start to process their feelings. “You have to keep people going through those phases,” she said.
Going forward, she said, “there will be a prolonged tail of stress,” especially if virus outbreaks recur. “We’ll have a long time enduring this.”
Don’t forget the self-care
There was a time during the pandemic when Dr. Cotton had become so overwhelmed by anxiety that she called the Physician Support Line to get some support from fellow psychiatrists.
“I thought, ‘Why not?’” she recalled. “I helped create the hotline. Why wouldn’t I call it?”
The calls took only a few minutes but they made a difference to Dr. Cotton, who had been severely ill with what she believed was an unconfirmed case of the novel coronavirus. “I immediately felt more like I improved my outlook by focusing on what I could control,” she said, “and accepting the things I could not control.”
Many psychiatrists are finding themselves in similar situations. Fortunately, colleagues are highlighting ways for psychiatrists to care for themselves just as they care for patients.
“One of the challenges clinicians are facing is that they are living through a shared experience in this global pandemic with their patients right now,” said psychologist Randi Pochtar, PhD, who is managing support groups for front-line workers at NYU Langone Health in New York City. “Some might find the work to be overwhelming and anxiety-inducing, and others might find their work to be helpful in managing their own anxiety and stress about the pandemic and its impact.”
Dr. Cotton said her breaking points came when she felt panic amid the pandemic. “I had watched too much news, and I’d seen protesters not taking it seriously, and I was scared for my family and myself. I just needed to feel like someone heard me feeling that way.”
The calls to the hotline were helpful, she said, and so was sharing news about her illness with friends. “So many people reached out to me and checked in on me, people I haven’t seen in years, and that was immensely helpful,” she said.
This sort of personal exposure may not come naturally to physicians and nurses, she said. “We don’t seek that kind of attention when we’re ill. Instead, we say: ‘I’m fine; how are you doing?’ That’s what we do every day of our lives at work.”
How can clinicians help themselves and one another? “Clinicians in our practice have been coping and supporting each other through peer supervision, connecting with colleagues in team meetings, and simply checking in on one another,” said Dr. Pochtar. “In addition, we can adopt many of the strategies that we are likely recommending to our patients, such as maintaining routines as much as possible, engaging in regular exercise, eating well and consistently, and connecting with friends and family.”
Managers can play important roles, said Dr. Fortuna. “I’ve been checking in with my faculty, being as supportive as I can be and highlighting the extraordinary things that people are doing, like going from zero to 100 percent in setting up telehealth.”
Dr. Konzer offered another perspective on recognizing the value of the work that psychiatrists are doing. “We’re on the front line of helping heal the front line, and in that responsibility comes an additional stress,” she said. “But there’s an additional gift of being able to contribute where we are most beneficial. We can try to be present now, versus worrying about what may happen or what lies ahead, and appreciate the beauty in the helpers and the small joys of life.”
Dr. Cotton, Dr. Berkowitz, Dr. Konzer, Dr. Welch, Dr. Fortuna, and Dr. Pochtar reported no relevant disclosures.
Doctors push back on treating COVID-19 as HAPE
For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.
“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”
Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.
“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.
The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.
“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”
The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.
“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”
A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.
The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.
The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”
In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”
Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.
Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.
Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.
It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.
“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”
In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.
“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”
Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.
At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.
Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”
“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”
The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.
“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.
Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.
For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.
“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”
Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.
“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.
The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.
“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”
The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.
“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”
A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.
The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.
The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”
In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”
Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.
Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.
Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.
It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.
“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”
In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.
“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”
Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.
At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.
Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”
“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”
The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.
“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.
Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.
For Luanne Freer, MD, an expert in high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and founder and director of Everest ER, a nonprofit seasonal clinic at the Mt. Everest base camp in Nepal (elevation, 17,600 ft), a sudden flurry of messages and questions she received about a possible COVID-19/HAPE link was startling.
“That’s why it kind of poked me in the eye,” she said, referencing her extensive experience treating HAPE, which she described as a pressure-related phenomenon. “My goodness, they are so completely different.”
Dr. Freer, an emergency physician, reached out to several pulmonary intensivists with experience treating both HAPE and COVID-19 to gauge their reactions, and within 36 hours, they had drafted their response. In the commentary, published in High Altitude Medicine & Biology, the clinicians note that the comparison between HAPE and COVID-19 is potentially risky.
“As a group of physicians who have in some cases cared for patients with COVID-19 and in all cases cared for patients with HAPE and studied its pathophysiology and management, we feel it important to correct this misconception, as continued amplification of this message could have adverse effects on management of these patients,” they wrote.
The suggestion that COVID-19 lung injury sometimes looks more like HAPE than like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) appeared in a journal review article in late March and was put forth by medical professionals on social media where it gained traction in recent weeks and was amplified in multiple media outlets, including this one.
“With COVID, we don’t understand everything that’s going on, but we know for sure it’s an inflammatory process – not a pressure-related problem,” Dr. Freer said. “I thought ... this could be so dangerous to load the medicines that we use when we’re treating HAPE onto patients with COVID-19.”
The pathophysiological mechanisms in HAPE are different than those in other respiratory syndromes, including those associated with COVID-19, said Andrew M. Luks, MD, of the UW Medicine, Seattle, and the first author on the commentary.
“HAPE is a noncardiogenic form of pulmonary edema, as are ARDS due to bacteria or viral pneumonia, re-expansion pulmonary edema, immersion pulmonary edema, negative pressure pulmonary edema, and neurogenic pulmonary edema,” Dr. Luks, Dr. Freer, and colleagues wrote in the commentary, explaining that all of these entities cause varying degrees of hypoxemia and diffuse bilateral opacities on chest imaging. “Importantly, in all of these cases, edema accumulates in the interstitial and alveolar spaces of the lung as a result of imbalance in Starling forces.”
A difference between these entities, however, is “the mechanism by which that imbalance develops,” they noted.
The excessive and uneven hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction that leads to a marked increase in pulmonary artery pressure, subsequent lung overperfusion, increased pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, and leakage of fluid from the vascular space into the alveolar space as seen in HAPE, is a “fundamentally different phenomenon than what is seen in COVID-19-related ARDS, which involves viral-mediated inflammatory responses as the primary pathophysiological mechanism,” they added.
The authors described several other differences between the conditions, ultimately noting that “understanding the distinction between the pathophysiological mechanisms of these entities is critical for patient management.”
In HAPE, supplemental oxygen alone may be sufficient; in COVID-19, it may improve hypoxemia but won’t resolve the underlying inflammation or injury, they explained, adding that “only good supportive care including mechanical ventilation, quite often for long periods of time, allows some patients to survive until their disease resolves.”
Further, HAPE can be prevented or treated with pulmonary vasodilators such a nifedipine or sildenafil, which decrease pulmonary artery pressure and, as a result lower pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure, they said.
Use of such medications for COVID-19 might decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve right ventricular function in COVID-19, but “by releasing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and increasing perfusion to nonventilated regions of the lung, they could also worsen ventilation-perfusion mismatch” and thereby worsen hypoxemia, they explained, adding that the treatments can also cause or worsen hypotension.
Efforts to share observations and experience are important in medicine, but sometimes, as in this circumstance, “they get out there, spread around – like a brushfire almost – and get [unwarranted] face validity,” Dr. Luks said, noting that in response to information circulating about COVID-19 and HAPE, he has already heard medical professionals floating the idea of treating COVID-19 with treatments used for HAPE.
It’s true that some COVID-19 lung injury cases are behaving differently than typical ARDS, he said, adding that presentation can vary.
“But trying to equate HAPE and COVID-19 is just wrong,” he said. “HAPE and COVID-19 may share several features ...but those are features that are shared by a lot of different forms of respiratory failure.”
In a recent video interview, WebMD’s chief medical officer John Whyte, MD, spoke with a New York City physician trained in critical care and emergency medicine, Cameron Kyle-Sidell, MD, who raised the need to consider different respiratory protocols for COVID-19, noting that standard protocols were falling short in many cases.
“What we’re seeing ... is something unusual, it’s something that we are not used to,” Dr. Kyle-Sidell of Maimonides Medical Center said in that interview, stressing that the presentation differed from that seen in typical ARDS. “The patterns I was seeing did not make sense.”
Like others, he noted that COVID-19 patients were presenting with illness that clinically looked more like HAPE, but that the pathophysiology is not necessary similar to HAPE.
At around the same time, Luciano Gattinoni, MD, of the Medical University of Göttingen in Germany and colleagues, published a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine stressing that the ARDS presentation in COVID-19 patients is atypical and requires a patient physiology–driven treatment approach, rather than a standard protocol–driven approach. Dr. Gattinoni and colleagues suggested that instead of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), physicians should consider the lowest possible PEEP and gentle ventilation.
Dr. Luks agreed that “some patients with COVID-19 do not have the same physiologic derangements that we see in a lot of other people with ARDS.”
“[Dr. Gattinoni] is making the point that we need to treat these people differently ... and I think that’s a valid point, and honestly, that’s a point that applied even before COVID-19,” he said. “Most of the things that we see in clinical practice – there’s a lot of heterogeneity between patients, and you have to be prepared to tailor your therapy in light of the differences that you’re picking up from your observations at the bedside and other data that you’re getting on the patient.”
The main concern Dr. Luks and his coauthors wanted to convey, they said, is making sure that the anecdotal experiences and observations of clinicians struggling to find answers don’t spiral out of control without proper vetting, thereby leading to patient harm.
“In this challenging time, we must identify the best means to care for these critically ill patients. That approach should be grounded in sound pulmonary physiology, clinical experience and, when available, evidence from clinical studies,” they concluded.
Dr. Luks and Dr. Freer reported having no financial disclosures.
COVID-19: New programs can provide money to keep your practice running
Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.
Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.
“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”
Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
Four options for financial assistance
However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.
1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.
“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.
(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)
Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.
Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.
Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.
Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”
One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.
2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.
Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.
3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:
- Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
- Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
- Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
- Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)
If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.
Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.
“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.
4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
Selecting the right option for your practice
Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:
- How well are patient volumes holding up?
- How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
- What is the overall economic loss?
- What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?
Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.
“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”
Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.
The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance
Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.
“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”
Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”
Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.
However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.
“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”
Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.
Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.
“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing
Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.
Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.
Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.
Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.
Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.
Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.
Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.
“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”
Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
Four options for financial assistance
However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.
1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.
“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.
(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)
Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.
Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.
Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.
Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”
One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.
2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.
Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.
3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:
- Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
- Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
- Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
- Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)
If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.
Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.
“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.
4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
Selecting the right option for your practice
Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:
- How well are patient volumes holding up?
- How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
- What is the overall economic loss?
- What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?
Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.
“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”
Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.
The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance
Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.
“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”
Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”
Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.
However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.
“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”
Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.
Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.
“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing
Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.
Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.
Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.
Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.
Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.
Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Family physician Frank Maselli, MD, saw approximately 30 patients a day in his office in the Bronx before COVID-19. But New York City has become a hot spot for the virus that has claimed the lives of the lives of more than 40,000 people nationwide.
Now Maselli and the other 10 physicians in the practice each treat only eight or nine patients a day via telemedicine. He spends most of his time on the phone answering patients’ questions about COVID-19 symptoms and potential exposure. Although he tries to bill for telemedicine and phone calls, he says many commercial payers reject the claims because their processing systems aren’t updated to reflect new coverage policies. He has enough cash in reserve to cover two payrolls, but he knows he needs a backup plan if patient volumes continue to decrease indefinitely.
“Our doctors will take a pay cut before we let people go,” says Maselli. “So far we’re OK because we’re getting paid for things we did two months ago before all of this happened.”
Ninety-seven percent of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to new data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). On average, practices report a 60% decrease in patient volume and a 55% decrease in revenue since the beginning of the public health emergency.
Four options for financial assistance
However, there are ways to offset revenue loss and remain financially viable during the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Options include the US Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program; the SBA’s Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); Medicare’s advanced payment program; and an SBA Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act (CESA) loan. These are in addition to several other strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving revenue.
1. Maselli, for example, applied for the Paycheck Protection Program, a short-term loan that helps small businesses (i.e., for physician offices, those with an annual revenue of under $12 million) keep staff employed during the COVID-19 crisis. The loan covers a variety of costs, including payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and interest on any other debt obligations incurred before February 15 of this year.
“We have no idea if this is coming and when, but it would be a big help,” he adds.
(As of press time, the Paycheck Protection Program had stopped accepting applications, having reached the limit of its $349 billion budget. Congress must now agree on legislation to add additional funding to assist small businesses.)
Practices can take out a loan of up to 2.5 times the average monthly payroll (excluding payroll for those making more than $100,000 annually) with a cap of $10 million. For example, if the average monthly payroll is $10,000 – and no employees earn more than $100,000 annually – the maximum loan amount is $25,000.
Practices approved for this loan can expect to receive the funds from their SBA-approved lender within 10 calendar days of the date of loan approval. Although it’s technically a loan, the good news is that it doesn’t need to be repaid if the practice complies with all of the loan requirements – particularly these two: The practice uses at least 75% of the loan specifically for payroll, and the practice keeps employees on the payroll (or rehire, when necessary) for 8 weeks after the loan origination date.
Forgiveness is reduced if full-time headcount declines, or if salaries and wages decrease. If a practice does need to repay all or a portion of the loan, it must do so within 2 years at an interest rate of 1%, and payments are deferred for 6 months.
Andrew D. McDonald, FACHE, practice leader of health care consulting at LBMC Healthcare, says it behooves practices to apply for this loan because it’s essentially free money during a time when revenue may be at an all-time low. “While the devil is in the details, on the surface, the paycheck protection funds appear to be a no-brainer. However, each practice will need to confirm with their lender that it’s a solid decision.”
One challenge with this loan is that some banks weren’t necessarily ready to accept applications on April 3, and many continue to lag behind in processing these applications.
2. A second option is the SBA’s EIDL, a low-interest, long-term loan (capped at 3.75% for small businesses) that practices with 500 or fewer employees can use to pay fixed debts, payrolls, accounts payable, and other bills that could have been paid had the disaster not occurred. Borrowers can ask for up to $2 million, and the maximum term of this loan is 30 years, though the overall process for obtaining these loans will depend on the lender.
Practices have until December 16 to apply for this loan. They can also apply for an expedited disbursement (i.e., an Economic Injury Disaster Advance) of up to $10,000 that’s paid within 3 days of the request.
3. A third option is Medicare’s COVID-19 advanced payment program. Under this program, eligible physicians are those who:
- Billed Medicare for claims within 180 days prior to the date of the request
- Are financially solvent (i.e., aren’t in bankruptcy)
- Are free from any active medical review or program integrity investigations
- Are in good standing with Medicare (i.e., don’t have an outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayment)
If physicians meet this criteria, they can ask their Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide an advanced payment of up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount based on a 3-month lookback period.
Once requested, MACs will issue payment within 7 calendar days from the date of the request. Repayment will occur in the form of automatic recoupments beginning 120 days after the advanced payment is received. Medicare has already approved more than 21,000 requests totaling more than $51 billion. CMS has provided a fact sheet to learn more about how to request an accelerated payment.
“The key is that you need to repay this, so you want to set a reasonable goal,” says Sarah Hostetter, senior consultant at Advisory Board, a health care research & data consulting firm. She says practices should consider what they’ll realistically be able to repay within 120 days.
4. A fourth option – specifically for mid-size practices – is a CESA loan, the details of which have yet to be announced, that will enable practices to access funds with an annualized rate no greater than 2% and with no principal or interest due for at least 6 months. The CARES Act, signed into law 3 weeks ago, provides $454 billion for this program.
Selecting the right option for your practice
Which singular option – or combination of options – is best for your practice? McDonald says to ask these questions:
- How well are patient volumes holding up?
- How well are physicians pivoting to telehealth?
- What is the overall economic loss?
- What are the available liquid assets, and how long can the practice maintain its financial viability over the next couple of months and beyond?
Cheryl Mongillo, MBA, administrative director of two independent family practices in Delaware, applied for both the Paycheck Protection Program and Medicare advanced payments because she’s worried about being able to pay staff while also covering costs related to personal protective equipment, medical waste, and cleaning, all of which have tripled since the pandemic began. One of the practices includes one physician and four nurse practitioners. The other includes five physicians and three nurse practitioners. In total, both practices employ 35 additional staff.
“I want our staff to know how much we care about them. My hope is that after this is over, our business will pick back up pretty quickly,” she adds. “However, until I can get the business back, I needed something to keep us afloat.”
Others are being more cautious. Crystal Bruning, practice manager at an Ob/Gyn clinic in Orlando, Florida, says her practice applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but is waiting another month or so before deciding whether it will also take advantage of Medicare advanced payments.
The practice is still trying to assess the true financial impact of its 30% reduction in patient volume. Bruning says the advanced payments wouldn’t amount to much anyway because only 10% of the practice’s patients have Medicare.
Making tough financial decisions while awaiting assistance
Kansas-based family physician Jennifer Bacani McKenney, MD, says she hasn’t paid herself a salary in weeks because of the revenue loss her practice has incurred.
“I want to make sure we can pay [all 12] employees,” she says. “In my family, we have two incomes, and we’re pretty good at saving money. However, I know not every physician can afford to do this.”
Although McKenney’s practice has seen a 75% reduction in patient volume, staff continue to provide virtual visits – including Zoom-based nursing home visits – phone visits, and in-person visits for acute illnesses. They also provide curbside immunizations. Still, long-term revenue loss is a concern. “I have a threshold in mind based on what we have in reserves,” she says. “If we hit that point, we would need to talk about a loan or Medicare advanced payments.”
Arkansas-based family physician Lonnie S. Robinson, MD, says he immediately applied for the Paycheck Protection Program after it was announced. “We also made sure we had a line of credit with our local bank during the very first discussions about what the pandemic would mean for our revenue streams,” he says.
However, because he’s in a rural area of the state, he continues to struggle with telemedicine due to broadband and connectivity challenges. Cash flow is another challenge because a lot of insurance companies are waiving copayments.
“I didn’t realize the amount of money we collect immediately from the patient,” he says. “This was a substantial revenue stream, and it was immediate revenue – not revenue waiting on a claim to be paid.”
Illinois-based family physician Deborah L. Winiger, MD, says she also applied for the Paycheck Protection Program but in the meantime had to reduce staff hours by a third because her patient volume dropped by more than half. She will also encourage staff to pursue temporary positions at a local hospital if the federal funds don’t materialize.
Kelly Shackleton, practice manager at a New York-based internal medicine practice, says she laid off 7 of her 16 staff members (including lab technicians, licensed practical nurses, billers, a referral specialist, and a file clerk) due to a 70% decrease in patient volume.
“I didn’t lay them all off at once,” she says. “I kept them until things were all caught up in each department. I plan to get them all back when the time is right, but I want to be sure to keep the practice afloat so they have a place to return to.” If the Paycheck Protection Program for which she applied comes through, then she will rehire them. She also applied for Medicare advanced payments and increased the practice’s line of credit.
Bill properly – and for everything you are still doing
Accurate and complete coding is critical during this time of financial instability, says Maselli. “I keep telling doctors to bill for everything they do,” he says. This includes phone calls between patients and physicians or other qualified healthcare providers (CPT codes 99441-99443). Note that these are time-based codes, requiring a minimum of five minutes of medical discussion.
Remote physiologic monitoring (including monitoring a patient’s oxygen saturation levels using pulse oximetry), virtual check-ins, and online digital evaluation and management services are also covered by Medicare and some commercial payers.
Other good news is that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services added more than 80 additional services that providers can furnish using telehealth, including new patient office visits, home visits, prolonged office visits, smoking and tobacco cessation counseling, annual depression and alcohol screenings, advanced care planning, and much more.
Mongillo, the family practice administrator in Delaware, agrees that physicians need to bill for as many services as possible. At one of the family medicine practices she manages, physicians perform wellness visits, when appropriate, if patients are already coming into the office for another ailment.
Also look for ways to cut costs. For example, Mongillo was able to renegotiate the practice’s telemedicine contract after she received several proposals from other vendors offering three months of complimentary service. Shackleton discontinued provider dictation services to save money.
Physicians need to take a hard look at what’s going on to help them sustain their business through times of uncertainty, says Advisory Board’s Hostetter. “Now is the time to evaluate options and figure out what’s right for your practice,” she adds.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.