Diversity in Medicine

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

 

 

Final Thoughts

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

 

 

Final Thoughts

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

Amid increasing numbers of applications, decreasing match rates, and ongoing lack of diversity in the dermatology trainee workforce, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional challenges to the dermatology residency application process and laid bare systemic inequities and inherent problems that must be addressed. Historically, dermatology applicants have excelled in academic metrics, such as US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores and nomination to the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society. As biases associated with these academic metrics are being elucidated, they have in turn become less available. With the upcoming change in USMLE Step 1 reporting to pass/fail only, as well as the elimination of Alpha Omega Alpha nomination for students, clinical grades, and/or class ranks at many medical schools, other elements of the application, such as volunteer experiences and research publications, may be weighed more heavily in the selection process. This may serve to exacerbate the application arms race, characterized by a steady rise in volunteer experiences, research publications, and research gap years that has already begun and likely will continue, particularly among dermatology applicants.

These issues are not unique to dermatology and are occurring across all medical specialties to varying degrees. The monetary and opportunity costs of the application process have become astronomical for both applicants and faculty. Faculty are overburdened with administrative duties related to resident recruitment and advising, and students are experiencing heightened match-related anxiety earlier and more acutely. These factors may contribute to burnout among trainees and faculty and may have deleterious effects on medical education. It is clear that transformative work must be pursued to ensure an equitable and sustainable residency application process moving forward. In this column, we review the notable work being done within dermatology and across specialties to reform the residency application process.

Coalition Recommendations

In August 2021, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (CoPA) released recommendations for comprehensive improvement of the undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education transition, which includes residency application. Of the 9 principal themes addressed, 2 focus on the residency application process: (1) equitable mission-driven application review, and (2) optimization of the application, interview, and selection processes, which relates to application volume as well as interview offers and formats.¹

In the area of application review, CoPA recommends replacing all letters of recommendation with structured evaluative letters as a universal tool in the application process.¹ These letters would include specialty-specific questions based on core competencies and would be completed by an evaluator who directly observed the student. Additionally, the group recommends revising the content and structure of the medical student performance evaluation to improve access to longitudinal assessment data about students. Ideally, developing UME competency outcomes to apply across learners would decrease reliance on traditional but potentially problematic application elements, such as licensing examination scores, clinical grades, and narrative evaluations.¹

To optimize residency application processes, CoPA recommends exploring innovative approaches to reduce application volume and maximize applicants interviewing and matching at programs where mutual interest is high.¹ Suggestions to address these issues include preference signaling, application caps, and/or additional rounds of application or matching. Standardization of the interview process also is recommended to improve equity, minimize educational disruption, and improve applicant well-being. Suggestions include the use of common interview offer and scheduling platforms, policies to govern interview offers and scheduling timelines, interview caps, and ongoing study of the impact of virtual interviews.¹

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Other Specialties

A number of specialties have developed innovations in the residency application process to improve equity and fairness as well as optimize applicant-program fit. Emergency medicine created a now widely adopted, specialty-specific standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE).² It compares applicants across a number of measures that include personal qualities, clinical skills, and a global assessment. The SLOE is designed to assess and compare applicants across institutions rather than provide recommendations. The emergency medicine SLOE also provides useful information about the letter writer, including duration and depth of interaction with the applicant and distribution of rankings of prior applicants.²

In 2019, obstetrics and gynecology launched a standardized application and interview process, which set a specialty-wide application deadline, limited interview invitations to the number of interview positions available, encouraged coordinated release of interview offers, and allowed applicants 72 hours to respond to invitations.³ These measures were implemented to improve fairness, transparency, and applicant well-being, as well as to promote equitable distribution of interviews. Data following this launch suggested that universal offer dates reduced excessive interviewing among competitive applicants.³

Last year, otolaryngology implemented a process known as preference signaling in which applicants were able to signal up to 5 preferred programs at the time of application. A signal allowed applicants to demonstrate interest in specific programs and could be used by programs during their application review process. Most applicants opted to submit signals, and programs received 0 to 71 signals (mean, 22).⁴ Almost all programs received at least 1 signal. The rate of receiving an interview was significantly higher for signaled programs (58%) compared to nonsignaled programs (14%)(P<.001), indicating that preference signaling may be beneficial for both programs and applicants for interview selection.⁴

Residency Application Innovations Implemented by Dermatology

Over the last 2 application cycles, dermatology has implemented several innovations to the residency application process. Initial work included release of guidelines for residency programs to conduct holistic application review,⁵ recommendations for website updates to share program-specific information with prospective trainees,⁶ and informational webinars and statements to update dermatology applicants about changes to the process and to answer application-related questions.^7-9

In 2020, dermatology initiated a coordinated interview invitation release in which interview offers were released on prespecified dates and applicants were given 48 hours prior to scheduling. Approximately 50% of residency programs participated in the first year, yet nearly all programs released on 1 of 2 universal dates in the current cycle. In a recent survey of dermatology applicants, nearly 90% supported coordinated release.¹⁰ Several other specialties also have incorporated universal release dates into their processes.

For the 2021-2022 application cycle, dermatology—along with internal medicine and general surgery—participated in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ pilot supplemental Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application.¹¹ The pilot was designed as a first step to updating the ERAS content by allowing students to share more information about their extracurricular, research, and clinical activities, as well as geographic and program preferences to optimize applicant-program fit. Preference signaling, similar to the otolaryngology process, was included in the supplemental application, with dermatology applicants choosing up to 3 preferred programs to signal, excluding their home programs and any programs where they completed in-person away rotations. Preliminary data suggest that the vast majority of dermatology programs and applicants participated in the supplemental application.¹² Ongoing analysis of survey data from applicants, advisors, and program directors will help inform future directions. Dermatology has been an integral partner in the development, implementation, and evaluation of this pilot.

Proposed Innovations to the Application Process

Given the challenges of the current application process, there has been a long list of proposed innovations to ameliorate applicant, advisor, and program concerns.¹³ Many of these approaches are intended to respond to increasing costs to programs and applicants as well as the lack of equity in the process. Application caps and an early result acceptance program have both been proposed to address the ever-increasing volume of applications.^14,15 Neither of these proposals has been adopted by a specialty yet, but obstetrics and gynecology stakeholders have shown broad support for an early result acceptance program, signaling a possible future pilot.¹⁶

Interview caps also have been proposed to promote more equitable distribution of interview positions.¹⁷ Ophthalmology implemented this approach in the 2021-2022 application cycle, with applicants limited to a maximum of 18 interviews.¹⁸ Data from this pilot will help determine the effect of interview caps as well as the optimal limit, which will vary by specialty.

Changes to the application content itself could better facilitate holistic review and optimize applicant-program fit. This is the principle driving the pilot supplemental ERAS application, but it also has been addressed in other specialties. Ophthalmology replaced the traditional personal statement with a shorter autobiographical statement as well as 2 short personal essay questions. Plastic surgery designed a common supplemental application, currently in its second iteration, that highlights specialty-specific information from applicants to promote holistic review and eventually reduce application costs.¹⁹

 

 

Final Thoughts

The reforms introduced and proposed by dermatology and other specialties represent initial steps to address the issues inherent to the current residency application process. Providing faculty with better tools to holistically assess applicants during the review process and increasing transparency between programs and applicants should help optimize applicant-program fit and increase diversity in the dermatology workforce. Streamlining the application process to allow students to highlight their unique qualities in a user-friendly format as well as addressing potential inequities in interview distribution and access to the application process hopefully will contribute to better outcomes for both programs and applicants. However, many of these steps are likely to create additional administrative burdens on program faculty and are unlikely to allay student fears about matching.

The underlying issue for many specialties, and particularly for dermatology, is that demand far outstrips supply. With stable numbers of residency positions and an ever-increasing number of applicants, the match rate will continue to decrease, leading to increased anxiety among those interested in pursuing dermatology. Although USMLE Step 1 scores have been shown to have racial bias²⁰ and there are no data correlating scores with clinical performance, the elimination of a scoring system may affect the number of applicants entering dermatology with downstream effects on match rates. Heightened anxiety places increased pressure on students to choose a specialty earlier in their training and impacts the activities they pursue during medical school. Overemphasis on specialty choice and the match process can lead to higher rates of burnout among students and trainees, as students may focus on activities designed to increase their chances of matching at the expense of pursuing activities that could lead to greater engagement and passion in their careers—a key protective factor against burnout.

The goal of the residency application process is to optimize fit between candidates and programs by aligning goals, values, and learning environment. Students and programs working together as honest brokers can lead to transformative change in the process, freeing both parties to highlight their unique qualities and contributions. Programs benefit from optimal fit by being able to hone their particular mission and recruit and retain residents and faculty engaged in that mission. Residents will thrive in programs that support their learning and career goals and will ultimately be better positioned to meaningfully contribute to their chosen field in whatever capacity they choose.

Acknowledgments—The views presented in this column reflect those of the 9 elected members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology Residency Program Directors Section steering committee, all of whom are program directors at their institutions (listed in parentheses): Ammar Ahmed, MD (The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas); Yolanda Helfrich, MD (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan); Jo-Ann M. Latkowksi, MD (New York University, New York); Kiran Motaparthi, MD (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida); Adena E. Rosenblatt, MD, PhD (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois); Ilana S. Rosman, MD (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri); Travis Vandergriff, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Diane Whitaker-Worth, MD (University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut); Scott Worswick, MD (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California).

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Among Black and White children, higher socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open. However, this association was not equitable when comparing Black and White children.

The results showed that postoperative mortality rates were significantly higher in Black children in the highest income category, compared with White children in the same category.

“[We] assessed whether increasing family SES is associated with lower pediatric postoperative mortality and, if so, whether this association is equitable among Black and White children,” Brittany L. Willer, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 51 pediatric tertiary care hospitals apart of the Children’s Hospital Association Pediatric Health Information System. The cohort included children younger than 18 years who underwent inpatient surgical procedures between January 2004 and December 2020.

The exposures of interest were race and parental income quartile; the primary endpoint was risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates by race and parental income quartile.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,378,111 participants, including 248,464 (18.0%) Black and 1,129,647 (82.0%) White children, respectively.

The overall mortality rate was 1.2%, and rates decreased as income quartile increased (1.4% in quartile 1 [lowest income]; 1.3% in quartile 2; 1.0% in quartile 3; and 0.9% in quartile 4 [highest income]; P < .001).

Among participants in the three lowest income quartiles, Black children had 33% greater odds of postoperative death versus White children (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.39; P < .001). This difference persisted in children in the highest income quartile (aOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.25-1.54; P < .001).

In addition, postoperative mortality rates in Black children in the highest income quartile (1.30%; 95% CI, 1.19%-1.42%) were similar to those of White children in the lowest income quartile (1.20%; 95% CI, 1.16%-1.25%).

“These findings suggest that increasing family SES did not provide equitable advantage to Black, compared with White children, and interventions that target socioeconomic inequities alone may not fully address persistent racial disparities in pediatric postoperative mortality,” wrote Dr. Willer and colleagues. “A multifaceted approach that includes dismantling of socioeconomic barriers, equitable availability of comprehensive pediatric surgical care, and personalized care for children of all races is needed.”

The researchers acknowledged that a potential limitation of the study was the use of zip code–level median household income as a proxy for family SES.
 

A perspective

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, said “there is a fair dose of racism and classism inside all of us – recognizing and coming to terms with it are steps toward improving equity issues.

“As providers, we have to remind ourselves to give our most prompt and thorough care to the patients with the most acute and severe illnesses,” Dr. Joos said. “As organizations, we have to pursue feedback from all our clients, but with special outreach to those that are used to not having their voices heard.”

No funding sources were reported. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe food insecurity was associated with metabolic syndrome and unfavorable cardiometabolic markers in Hispanic/Latino youth, researchers report.

The findings, published March 16 in Pediatrics, highlight the need to investigate interventions that address food insecurity among Hispanic/Latino youth, a segment of the U.S. population at high risk of cardiometabolic complications.

“Among Hispanic/Latino youth, no study, to our knowledge has evaluated food insecurity’s role in metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers in this population,” lead author Luis E. Maldonado, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the associations between lower household and child food security and metabolic syndrome, as well as clinically measured cardiometabolic markers, including fasting plasma glucose, waist circumference, triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Household food security (high, marginal, low, very low) and child food security (high, marginal, low/very low) measures were evaluated separately, and were adjusted for participant age, sex, site, parental education, and poverty-income ratio.

Data were obtained from the Hispanic Community Children’s Health Study/Study of Latino Youth, a study of offspring of adults enrolled in the Hispanic Community Health Survey/Study of Latinos.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,325 Hispanic/Latino youth aged 8-16 years. For both household food security and child food security, youth in the lowest food security category had significantly lower HDL-C compared with youth with high food security (household food security, –3.17; 95% confidence interval, –5.65 to –0.70; child food security, –1.81; 95% CI, –3.54 to –0.09).

In addition, low/very low compared with high child food security was associated with higher triglycerides (beta, 8.68; 95% CI, 1.75-15.61), higher fasting plasma glucose (beta, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.08-2.65), and metabolic syndrome composite variable expected log counts (beta, 2.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.45).

Furthermore, the researchers found statistically significant interactions between each of the two food security measures and receipt of any food assistance in the previous year in models of triglycerides (P for interactions: household food security, .03 and child food security, .005) and HDL-C (P for interactions: household food security, .01 and child food security, .04).

After evaluating the effect of parental place of birth, they found a statistically significant association for triglycerides only (P for interactions: household food security, .05 and child food security, .008).

“Our study is among the first to document adverse associations between household and child food security measures with a metabolic syndrome score variable and several metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers among US Hispanic/Latino youth,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the cross-sectional nature of the study was a key limitation; thus, causality could not be inferred.

“In the future, we plan to conduct more qualitative work to better understand how Hispanic/Latino families respond to food insecurity, which may identify the factors that shape their response,” study author Sandra S. Albrecht, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, said in an interview.
 

Recommendations for pediatricians

Food insecurity researcher Yankun Wang, PhD candidate at Indiana University, Bloomington, commented: “I would recommend pediatricians pay more attention to children from low-income households since they are more likely to have mental and physical health issues due to food insecurity.

“It can be very helpful if pediatricians could help families obtain SNAP benefits, enroll youth in the school breakfast and lunch programs, and promote nutrition education in schools,” Mr. Wang added.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Severe food insecurity was associated with metabolic syndrome and unfavorable cardiometabolic markers in Hispanic/Latino youth, researchers report.

The findings, published March 16 in Pediatrics, highlight the need to investigate interventions that address food insecurity among Hispanic/Latino youth, a segment of the U.S. population at high risk of cardiometabolic complications.

“Among Hispanic/Latino youth, no study, to our knowledge has evaluated food insecurity’s role in metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers in this population,” lead author Luis E. Maldonado, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the associations between lower household and child food security and metabolic syndrome, as well as clinically measured cardiometabolic markers, including fasting plasma glucose, waist circumference, triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Household food security (high, marginal, low, very low) and child food security (high, marginal, low/very low) measures were evaluated separately, and were adjusted for participant age, sex, site, parental education, and poverty-income ratio.

Data were obtained from the Hispanic Community Children’s Health Study/Study of Latino Youth, a study of offspring of adults enrolled in the Hispanic Community Health Survey/Study of Latinos.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,325 Hispanic/Latino youth aged 8-16 years. For both household food security and child food security, youth in the lowest food security category had significantly lower HDL-C compared with youth with high food security (household food security, –3.17; 95% confidence interval, –5.65 to –0.70; child food security, –1.81; 95% CI, –3.54 to –0.09).

In addition, low/very low compared with high child food security was associated with higher triglycerides (beta, 8.68; 95% CI, 1.75-15.61), higher fasting plasma glucose (beta, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.08-2.65), and metabolic syndrome composite variable expected log counts (beta, 2.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.45).

Furthermore, the researchers found statistically significant interactions between each of the two food security measures and receipt of any food assistance in the previous year in models of triglycerides (P for interactions: household food security, .03 and child food security, .005) and HDL-C (P for interactions: household food security, .01 and child food security, .04).

After evaluating the effect of parental place of birth, they found a statistically significant association for triglycerides only (P for interactions: household food security, .05 and child food security, .008).

“Our study is among the first to document adverse associations between household and child food security measures with a metabolic syndrome score variable and several metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers among US Hispanic/Latino youth,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the cross-sectional nature of the study was a key limitation; thus, causality could not be inferred.

“In the future, we plan to conduct more qualitative work to better understand how Hispanic/Latino families respond to food insecurity, which may identify the factors that shape their response,” study author Sandra S. Albrecht, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, said in an interview.
 

Recommendations for pediatricians

Food insecurity researcher Yankun Wang, PhD candidate at Indiana University, Bloomington, commented: “I would recommend pediatricians pay more attention to children from low-income households since they are more likely to have mental and physical health issues due to food insecurity.

“It can be very helpful if pediatricians could help families obtain SNAP benefits, enroll youth in the school breakfast and lunch programs, and promote nutrition education in schools,” Mr. Wang added.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Severe food insecurity was associated with metabolic syndrome and unfavorable cardiometabolic markers in Hispanic/Latino youth, researchers report.

The findings, published March 16 in Pediatrics, highlight the need to investigate interventions that address food insecurity among Hispanic/Latino youth, a segment of the U.S. population at high risk of cardiometabolic complications.

“Among Hispanic/Latino youth, no study, to our knowledge has evaluated food insecurity’s role in metabolic syndrome and metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers in this population,” lead author Luis E. Maldonado, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the associations between lower household and child food security and metabolic syndrome, as well as clinically measured cardiometabolic markers, including fasting plasma glucose, waist circumference, triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Household food security (high, marginal, low, very low) and child food security (high, marginal, low/very low) measures were evaluated separately, and were adjusted for participant age, sex, site, parental education, and poverty-income ratio.

Data were obtained from the Hispanic Community Children’s Health Study/Study of Latino Youth, a study of offspring of adults enrolled in the Hispanic Community Health Survey/Study of Latinos.
 

Results

The study cohort included 1,325 Hispanic/Latino youth aged 8-16 years. For both household food security and child food security, youth in the lowest food security category had significantly lower HDL-C compared with youth with high food security (household food security, –3.17; 95% confidence interval, –5.65 to –0.70; child food security, –1.81; 95% CI, –3.54 to –0.09).

In addition, low/very low compared with high child food security was associated with higher triglycerides (beta, 8.68; 95% CI, 1.75-15.61), higher fasting plasma glucose (beta, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.08-2.65), and metabolic syndrome composite variable expected log counts (beta, 2.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.45).

Furthermore, the researchers found statistically significant interactions between each of the two food security measures and receipt of any food assistance in the previous year in models of triglycerides (P for interactions: household food security, .03 and child food security, .005) and HDL-C (P for interactions: household food security, .01 and child food security, .04).

After evaluating the effect of parental place of birth, they found a statistically significant association for triglycerides only (P for interactions: household food security, .05 and child food security, .008).

“Our study is among the first to document adverse associations between household and child food security measures with a metabolic syndrome score variable and several metabolic syndrome–relevant cardiometabolic markers among US Hispanic/Latino youth,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the cross-sectional nature of the study was a key limitation; thus, causality could not be inferred.

“In the future, we plan to conduct more qualitative work to better understand how Hispanic/Latino families respond to food insecurity, which may identify the factors that shape their response,” study author Sandra S. Albrecht, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, said in an interview.
 

Recommendations for pediatricians

Food insecurity researcher Yankun Wang, PhD candidate at Indiana University, Bloomington, commented: “I would recommend pediatricians pay more attention to children from low-income households since they are more likely to have mental and physical health issues due to food insecurity.

“It can be very helpful if pediatricians could help families obtain SNAP benefits, enroll youth in the school breakfast and lunch programs, and promote nutrition education in schools,” Mr. Wang added.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.