Practice Management

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”






 

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”






 

When the Affordable Care Act was signed in 2010, patients became eligible for coverage of screening examinations, which was good news for gastroenterologists and their patients in the fight to prevent colorectal cancer.

But there was a problem: While noninvasive stool tests – measuring microscopic amounts of blood or key DNA mutations, both tip-offs to increased colorectal cancer risk – were considered a screen, the necessary follow-up colonoscopy was not, leaving patients with expensive copays or other payment responsibility.

That interpretation prompted a years-long effort to have the federal agencies who oversee the health insurance sector reinterpret their policy, which finally changed in May 2022. Medicare, which is not covered by the ACA and is administered by a different agency, announced a change to its policy in July 2022, and the change went into effect in January 2023.

“It’s a major victory for patients, and I couldn’t be more delighted,” said David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine in gastroenterology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and former American Gastroenterological Association president, who participated in the effort.

AGA Regulatory Affairs Director Leslie Narramore said AGA Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy Kathleen Teixeira worked for 10 years, alongside other GI societies and patient advocacy groups, to close the “colonoscopy loophole.” In 2022, the AGA, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and the American Cancer Society–Cancer Action Network met with White House officials and senior officials with the Department of Health & Human Services about expanding the coverage. They also lobbied to eliminate cost-sharing, another way in which preventive colonoscopy is discouraged.

“The COVID-19 public health emergency highlighted health disparities and barriers to access to care,” said Ms. Narramore, who gave input about the effort along with Ms. Teixeira and AGA Director of Government Affairs Sarah Ankney. “The temporary suspension of elective procedures, including screening colonoscopies, exacerbated the existing low colorectal screening rates and created momentum and willingness in agency officials to create positive change.”

Without coverage of the colonoscopy, patients have needed to cover at least part of the cost of the procedure, which could be $1,000 or more with private insurance, or $100 or more with Medicare, Dr. Lieberman said. So, he noted, unsuspecting patients might receive a positive result on a noninvasive test and have a colonoscopy, only to get a “surprise bill.” Or they would know about the lack of coverage and not get the colonoscopy.

“Prior to the policy change, gastroenterologists and their staff had to explain to patients that their insurer would not fully pay for a colonoscopy following a positive noninvasive stool test, and field questions from upset patients who weren’t aware of their insurance plan’s cost-sharing requirements for a cancer screening procedure they thought was free,” Ms. Narramore said.

There’s little doubt the change will help save lives and improve quality of life, Dr. Lieberman said.

“We don’t know the full impact of this new ruling, but we know that financial barriers are important for some patients,” he said. “And so by removing these barriers we hope that we’re going to see improved adherence to follow-up with colonoscopy after a positive stool test, and that would result in reductions in incidence, mortality, and increased life-years gained.”

Ms. Narramore said the changes show the importance of pushing for policy change.

“Our physician advocates were effective in educating policy makers on the need for coverage of the full colorectal cancer screening continuum, and how colorectal cancer needs to be viewed as a program given the various steps necessary for a complete screening,” she said. “These successful efforts demonstrate to our members that advocacy works and that they can be a voice for their patients in improving their access to care.”






 

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

 

 

Disadvantages of Transferring Programs

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

 

 

Disadvantages of Transferring Programs

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Transferring from one residency program to another is rare but not unheard of. According to the most recent Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Data Resource Book, there were 1020 residents who transferred residency programs in the 2020-2021 academic year.¹ With a total of 126,759 active residents in specialty programs, the percentage of transferring residents was less than 1%. The specialties with the highest number of transferring residents included psychiatry, general surgery, internal medicine, and family medicine. In dermatology programs, there were only 2 resident transfers during the 2019-2020 academic year and 6 transfers in the 2020-2021 academic year.^1,2 A resident contemplating transferring training programs must carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before undertaking the uncertain transfer process, but transferring residency programs can be achieved successfully with planning and luck.

Deciding to Transfer

The decision to transfer residency programs may be a difficult one that is wrought with anxiety. There are many reasons why a trainee may wish to pursue transferring training programs. A transfer to another geographic area may be necessary for personal or family reasons, such as to reunite with a spouse and children or to care for a sick family member. A resident may find their program to be a poor fit and may wish to train in a different educational environment. Occasionally, a program can lose its accreditation, and its residents will be tasked with finding a new position elsewhere. A trainee also may realize that the specialty they matched into initially does not align with their true passions. It is important for the potential transfer applicant to be levelheaded about their decision. Residency is a demanding period for every trainee; switching programs may not be the best solution for every problem and should only be considered if essential.

Transfer Timing

A trainee may have thoughts of leaving a program soon after starting residency or perhaps even before starting if their National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match result was a disappointment; however, there are certain rules related to transfer timing. The NRMP Match represents a binding commitment for both the applicant and program. If for any reason an applicant will not honor the binding commitment, the NRMP requires the applicant to initiate a waiver review, which can be requested for unanticipated serious and extreme hardship, change of specialty, or ineligibility. According to the NRMP rules and regulations, applicants cannot apply for, discuss, interview for, or accept a position in another program until a waiver has been granted.³ Waivers based on change of specialty must be requested by mid-January prior to the start of training, which means most applicants who match to positions that begin in the same year of the Match do not qualify for change of specialty waivers. However, those who matched to an advanced position and are doing a preliminary year position may consider this option if they have a change of heart during their internship. The NRMP may consider a 1-year deferral to delay training if mutually agreed upon by both the matched applicant and the program.³ The binding commitment is in place for the first 45 days of training, and applicants who resign within 45 days or a program that tries to solicit the transfer of a resident prior to that date could be in violation of the Match and can face consequences such as being barred from entering the matching process in future cycles. Of the 1020 transfers that occurred among residents in specialty programs during the 2020-2021 academic year, 354 (34.7%) occurred during the first year of the training program; 228 (22.4%) occurred during the second year; 389 (38.1%) occurred during the third year; and 49 (4.8%) occurred in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of the program.¹ Unlike other jobs/occupations in which one can simply give notice, in medical training even if a transfer position is accepted, the transition date between programs must be mutually agreed upon. Often, this may coincide with the start of the new academic year.

The Transfer Process

Transferring residency programs is a substantial undertaking. Unlike the Match, a trainee seeking to transfer programs does so without a standardized application system or structured support through the process; the transfer applicant must be prepared to navigate the transfer process on their own. The first step after making the decision to transfer is for the resident to meet with the program leadership (ie, program director[s], coordinator, designated official) at their home program to discuss the decision—a nerve-wracking but imperative first step. A receiving program may not favor an applicant secretly applying to a new program without the knowledge of their home program and often will require the home program’s blessing to proceed. The receiving program also would want to ensure the applicant is in good standing and not leaving due to misconduct. Once given the go-ahead, the process is largely in the hands of the applicant. The transfer applicant should identify locations or programs of interest and then take initiative to reach out to potential programs. FREIDA (Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access) is the American Medical Association’s residency and fellowship database that allows vacant position listings to be posted online.⁴ Additionally, the Association of American Medical Colleges’ FindAResident website is a year-round search tool designed to help find open residency and fellowship positions.⁵ Various specialties also may have program director listserves that communicate vacant positions. On occasion, there are spots in the main NRMP Match that are reserved positions (“R”). These are postgraduate year 2 positions in specialty programs that begin in the year of the Match and are reserved for physicians with prior graduate medical education; these also are known as “Physician Positions.”⁶ Ultimately, advertisements for vacancies may be few and far between, requiring the resident to send unsolicited emails with curriculum vitae attached to the program directors at programs of interest to inquire about any vacancies and hope for a favorable response. Even if the transfer applicant is qualified, luck that the right spot will be available at the right time may be the deciding factor in transferring programs.

The next step is interviewing for the position. There likely will be fewer candidates interviewing for an open spot but that does not make the process less competitive. The candidate should highlight their strengths and achievements and discuss why the new program would be a great fit both personally and professionally. Even if an applicant is seeking a transfer due to discontent with a prior program, it is best to act graciously and not speak poorly about another training program.

Prior to selection, the candidate may be asked to provide information such as diplomas, US Medical Licensing Examination Step and residency in-service training examination scores, and academic reviews from their current residency program. The interview process may take several weeks as the graduate medical education office often will need to officially approve of an applicant before a formal offer to transfer is extended.

Finally, once an offer is made and accepted, there still is a great amount of paperwork to complete before the transition. The applicant should stay on track with all off-boarding and on-boarding requirements, such as signing a contract, obtaining background checks, and applying for a new license to ensure the switch is not delayed.

 

 

Disadvantages of Transferring Programs

The transfer process is not easy to navigate and can be a source of stress for the applicant. It is natural to fear resentment from colleagues and co-residents. Although transferring programs might be in the best interest of the trainee, it may leave a large gap in the program that they are leaving, which can place a burden on the remaining residents.

There are many adjustments to be made after transferring programs. The transferring resident will again start from scratch, needing to learn the ropes and adapt to the growing pains of being at a new institution. This may require learning a completely new electronic medical record, adapting to a new culture, and in many cases stepping in as a senior resident without fully knowing the ins and outs of the program.

Advantages of Transferring Programs

Successfully transferring programs is something to celebrate. There may be great benefits to transferring to a program that is better suited to the trainee—either personally or professionally. Ameliorating the adversity that led to the decision to transfer such as reuniting a long-distance family or realizing one’s true passion can allow the resident to thrive as a trainee and maximize their potential. Transferring programs can give a resident a more well-rounded training experience, as different programs may have different strengths, patient populations, and practice settings. Working with different faculty members with varied niches and practice styles can create a more comprehensive residency experience.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, transferring residency programs is not easy but also is not impossible. Successfully switching residency programs can be a rewarding experience providing greater well-being and fulfillment.

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

A surgeon in Tulsa shot by a disgruntled patient. A doctor in India beaten by a group of bereaved family members. A general practitioner in the United Kingdom threatened with stabbing. The reality is grim: Health care workers across the globe experience violence while at work. A new study identifies this trend and finds that 25% of health care workers polled were willing to quit because of such violence.

“That was pretty appalling,” Rahul Kashyap, MD, MBA, MBBS, recalls. Dr. Kashyap is one of the leaders of the Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems (ViSHWaS), which polled an international sample of physicians, nurses, and hospital staff. This study has worrying implications, Dr. Kashyap says. In a time when hospital staff are reporting burnout in record numbers, further deterrents may be the last thing our health care system needs. But Dr. Kashyap hopes that bringing awareness to these trends may allow physicians, policymakers, and the public to mobilize and intervene before it’s too late.

Previous studies have revealed similar trends. The rate of workplace violence directed at U.S. health care workers is five times that of workers in any other industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The same study found that attacks had increased 63% from 2011 to 2018. Other polls that focus on the pandemic show that nearly half of U.S. nurses believe that violence increased since the world shut down. Well before the pandemic, however, a study from the Indian Medical Association found that 75% of doctors experienced workplace violence.

With this history in mind, perhaps it’s not surprising that the idea for the study came from the authors’ personal experiences. They had seen coworkers go through attacks, or they had endured attacks themselves, Dr. Kashyap says. But they couldn’t find any global data to back up these experiences. So Dr. Kashyap and his colleagues formed a web of volunteers dedicated to creating a cross-sectional study.

They got in touch with researchers from countries across Asia, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. The initial group agreed to reach out to their contacts, casting a wide net. Researchers used WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and text messages to distribute the survey. Health care workers in each country completed the brief questionnaire, recalling their prepandemic world and evaluating their current one.

Within 2 months, they had reached health care workers in more than 100 countries. They concluded the study when they received about 5,000 results, according to Dr. Kashyap, and then began the process of stratifying the data. For this report, they focused on critical care, emergency medicine, and anesthesiology, which resulted in 598 responses from 69 countries. Of these, India and the United States had the highest number of participants.

In all, 73% of participants reported facing physical or verbal violence while in the hospital; 48% said they felt less motivated to work because of that violence; 39% of respondents believed that the amount of violence they experienced was the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic; and 36% of respondents believed that violence had increased. Even though they were trained on guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 20% of participants felt unprepared to face violence.

Although the study didn’t analyze the reasons workers felt this way, Dr. Kashyap speculates that it could be related to the medical distrust that grew during the pandemic or the stress patients and health care professionals experienced during its peak.

Regardless, the researchers say their study is a starting point. Now that the trend has been highlighted, it may be acted on.

Moving forward, Dr. Kashyap believes that controlling for different variables could determine whether factors like gender or shift time put a worker at higher risk for violence. He hopes it’s possible to interrupt these patterns and reestablish trust in the hospital environment. “It’s aspirational, but you’re hoping that through studies like ViSHWaS, which means trust in Hindi ... [we could restore] the trust and confidence among health care providers for the patients and family members.”

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

At least one state licensing agency is revoking nursing licenses allegedly obtained in a multistate fake diploma scheme.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced charges against 25 owners, operators, and employees of three Florida nursing schools in a fraud scheme in which they sold as many as 7,600 fake nursing degrees.

The purchasers in the diploma scheme paid $10,000 to $15,000 for degrees and transcripts and some 2,800 of the buyers passed the national nursing licensing exam to become registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practice nurses/vocational nurses (LPN/VNs) around the country, according to The New York Times.

Many of the degree recipients went on to work at hospitals, nursing homes, and Veterans Affairs medical centers, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Several national nursing organizations cooperated with the investigation, and the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation already annulled 26 licenses, according to the Delaware Nurses Association. Fake licenses were issued in five states, according to federal reports.

“We are deeply unsettled by this egregious act,” DNA President Stephanie McClellan, MSN, RN, CMSRN, said in the group’s press statement. “We want all Delaware nurses to be aware of this active issue and to speak up if there is a concern regarding capacity to practice safely by a colleague/peer,” she said.

The Oregon State Board of Nursing is also investigating at least a dozen nurses who may have paid for their degrees, according to a Portland CBS affiliate.

The National Council of State Boards of Nursing said in a statement that it had helped authorities identify and monitor the individuals who allegedly provided the false degrees.
 

Nursing community reacts

News of the fraud scheme spread through the nursing community, including social media. “The recent report on falsified nursing school degrees is both heartbreaking and serves as an eye-opener,” tweeted Usha Menon, PhD, RN, FAAN, dean and health professor of the University of South Florida Health College of Nursing. “There was enough of a need that prompted these bad actors to develop a scheme that could’ve endangered dozens of lives.”

Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, PhD, MBA, RN, the new president of the American Nurses Association, also weighed in. “The accusation that personnel at once-accredited nursing schools allegedly participated in this scheme is simply deplorable. These unlawful and unethical acts disparage the reputation of actual nurses everywhere who have rightfully earned [their titles] through their education, hard work, dedication, and time.”

The false degrees and transcripts were issued by three once-accredited and now-shuttered nursing schools in South Florida: Palm Beach School of Nursing, Sacred Heart International Institute, and Sienna College.

The alleged co-conspirators reportedly made $114 million from the scheme, which dates back to 2016, according to several news reports. Each defendant faces up to 20 years in prison.

Most LPN programs charge $10,000 to $15,000 to complete a program, Robert Rosseter, a spokesperson for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), told this news organization.

None were AACN members, and none were accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, which is AACN’s autonomous accrediting agency, Mr. Rosseter said. AACN membership is voluntary and is open to schools offering baccalaureate or higher degrees, he explained.

“What is disturbing about this investigation is that there are over 7,600 people around the country with fraudulent nursing credentials who are potentially in critical health care roles treating patients,” Chad Yarbrough, acting special agent in charge for the FBI in Miami, said in the federal justice department release.
 

‘Operation Nightingale’ based on tip

The federal action, dubbed “Operation Nightingale” after the nursing pioneer Florence Nightingale, began in 2019. It was based on a tip related to a case in Maryland, according to Nurse.org.

That case ensnared Palm Beach School of Nursing owner Johanah Napoleon, who reportedly was selling fake degrees for $6,000 to $18,000 each to two individuals in Maryland and Virginia. Ms. Napoleon was charged in 2021 and eventually pled guilty. The Florida Board of Nursing shut down the Palm Beach school in 2017 owing to its students’ low passing rate on the national licensing exam.

Two participants in the bigger scheme who had also worked with Ms. Napoleon – Geralda Adrien and Woosvelt Predestin – were indicted in 2021. Ms. Adrien owned private education companies for people who at aspired to be nurses, and Mr. Predestin was an employee. They were sentenced to 27 months in prison last year and helped the federal officials build the larger case.

The 25 individuals who were charged Jan. 25 operated in Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Florida.
 

Schemes lured immigrants

In the scheme involving Siena College, some of the individuals acted as recruiters to direct nurses who were looking for employment to the school, where they allegedly would then pay for an RN or LPN/VN degree. The recipients of the false documents then used them to obtain jobs, including at a hospital in Georgia and a Veterans Affairs medical center in Maryland, according to one indictment. The president of Siena and her co-conspirators sold more than 2,000 fake diplomas, according to charging documents.

At the Palm Beach College of Nursing, individuals at various nursing prep and education programs allegedly helped others obtain fake degrees and transcripts, which were then used to pass RN and LPN/VN licensing exams in states that included Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio, according to the indictment.

Some individuals then secured employment with a nursing home in Ohio, a home health agency for pediatric patients in Massachusetts, and skilled nursing facilities in New York and New Jersey.

Prosecutors allege that the president of Sacred Heart International Institute and two other co-conspirators sold 588 fake diplomas.

The FBI said that some of the aspiring nurses who were talked into buying the degrees were LPNs who wanted to become RNs and that most of those lured into the scheme were from South Florida’s Haitian American immigrant community, Nurse.org reported.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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