Neurology Reviews

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

A common gut bacteria may play a role in the development of Parkinson’s disease (PD) by causing aggregation of the alpha-synuclein protein, a key feature in the pathology of PD, a small study suggests.

Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.

“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Screen and treat?

It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.

Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.

In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.

They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.

In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).

Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.

“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.

The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
 

No clinical implications

In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.

“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.

“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.

“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.

The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common gut bacteria may play a role in the development of Parkinson’s disease (PD) by causing aggregation of the alpha-synuclein protein, a key feature in the pathology of PD, a small study suggests.

Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.

“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Screen and treat?

It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.

Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.

In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.

They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.

In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).

Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.

“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.

The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
 

No clinical implications

In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.

“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.

“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.

“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.

The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common gut bacteria may play a role in the development of Parkinson’s disease (PD) by causing aggregation of the alpha-synuclein protein, a key feature in the pathology of PD, a small study suggests.

Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.

“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
 

Screen and treat?

It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.

Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.

In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.

They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.

In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).

Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.

“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.

The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
 

No clinical implications

In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.

“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.

“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.

“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.

The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

There’s been some recent news about medical schools gradually dropping the long-established practice of legacy admissions. This is where people related to successful alumni and/or big donors can get preferential admission, possibly over more qualified people.

All of us likely experienced this from one side or another, though realistically I haven’t thought about it years. My kids went to the same state school I did, but I’m pretty sure I had nothing to do with their being accepted. I never gave the school a single donation, nor did I call anyone there to try and get them in. Not that anyone would have known who I was if I’d tried. I’m just another one of many who went there, preserved only in some filing cabinet of transcripts somewhere.

I’m all for the legacy system ending, though, for one simple reason: It’s not fair.

If someone is qualified, great. They should be admitted on their own merits. But if they’re not, they shouldn’t get into medical school just because one (or both) of their parents went there, or is a VIP, or paid for a new library wing.

The reason I’m writing this is because the recent reporting did bring back a memory.

A long time ago, when I was in college, I hung out with other premed students. We knew we were all competing with each other for the same spots at the state medical school, but also knew that we wouldn’t all get in there. That didn’t make us enemies, it was just the truth. It’s that point in life where ANY medical school admission is all you want.

Pete (not his real name) was a nice guy, but his grades weren’t the best. His MCAT scores lagged behind the rest of us in the clique, and ... he didn’t care.

Pete’s dad had graduated from the state medical school, and was still on staff there. He was now on the teaching staff ... and on the school’s admissions board. To Pete, tests and grades didn’t matter. His admission was assured.

So it was no surprise when he got in ahead of the rest of us with better qualifications. Most of us, including me, did get in somewhere, so we were still happy. We just had to move farther and pay more, but that’s life.

I really didn’t think much about Pete again after that. I was now in medical school, I had a whole new social group, and more importantly I didn’t really have time to think of much beyond when the next exam was.

Then I moved home, and started residency. During my PGY-2 year we had a changing group of medical students assigned to my wards rotation.

And, as you probably guessed, one of them was Pete.

Pete was in his last year of medical school. But we’d both started in the same year, and now I was 2 years ahead of him. I didn’t ask him what happened, but another medical student told me he wasn’t known to be the best student, but the university refused to drop him, and just kept setting him back a class here, a year there.

Maybe they’d have done the same for anyone, but I doubt it.

I never saw Pete again after that. When I looked him up online tonight he’s not listed as being a doctor, and isn’t even in medicine. Granted, a lot of doctors have left medicine, and maybe he did too.

But the more likely reason is that Pete never should have been there in the first place. He got in as a legacy, taking a medical school slot from someone who may have been more capable and driven.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me. It didn’t then and it doesn’t now.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

The number of cancer survivors who report functional limitation has more than doubled in 20 years, according to a research letter published in JAMA Oncology.

Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.

Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.

The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.

For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
 

Patients surveyed on function

Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.

Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
 

Not just a result of living longer

Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.

“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.

Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.

Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.

“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
 

Quality of life beyond survivorship

Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.

“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.

The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.

There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”

Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.

“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.

A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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

As the cost of malpractice insurance continues to increase in many states, physicians in private practice may want to take advantage of discounts insurers offer to reduce premiums.

Getting a better deal might simply mean taking advantage of incentives and discounts your insurer may already offer. These include claims-free, new-to-practice, and working part-time discounts.

However, if you decide to shop around, keep in mind that discounts are just one factor that can affect your premium price – insurers look at your specialty, location, and claims history.

One of the most common ways physicians can earn discounts is by participating in risk management programs. With this type of program, physicians evaluate elements of their practice and documentation practices and identify areas that might leave them at risk for a lawsuit. While they save money, physician risk management programs also are designed to reduce malpractice claims, which ultimately minimizes the potential for bigger financial losses, insurance experts say.

“It’s a win-win situation when liability insurers and physicians work together to minimize risk, and it’s a win for patients,” said Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation.

Doctors in private practice or employed by small hospitals that are not self-insured can qualify for these discounts, said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare Management Consultants.

“I do a lot of work with medical malpractice companies trying to find clients policies. All the carriers are transparent about what physicians have to do to lower their premiums. Physicians can receive the discounts if they follow through and meet the insurer’s requirements,” said Mr. Zetter.

State insurance departments regulate medical malpractice insurance, including the premium credits insurers offer. Most states cap discounts at 25%, but some go as high as 70%, according to The Doctors Company, a national physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.

Insurers typically offer doctors several ways to earn discounts. The size of the discount also can depend on whether a doctor is new to a practice, remains claims free, or takes risk management courses.

In addition to the premium discount, some online risk management classes and webinars are eligible for CME credits.

“The credits can add up and they can be used for recertification or relicensure,” said Susan Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company.

Here are five ways you may qualify for discounts with your insurer.

1. Make use of discounts available to new doctors

Doctors can earn hefty discounts on their premiums when they are no longer interns or residents and start practicing medicine. The Doctors Company usually gives a 50% discount on member premiums the first year they’re in practice and a 25% discount credit in their second year. The discounts end after that.  

Other insurance carriers offer similar discounts to doctors starting to practice medicine. The deepest one is offered in the first year (at least 50%) and a smaller one (20%-25%) the second year, according to medical malpractice brokers.

“The new-to-practice discount is based solely on when the physician left their formal training to begin their practice for the first time; it is not based on claim-free history,” explained Mr. Zetter.

This is a very common discount used by different insurer carriers, said Dr. Price. “New physicians don’t have the same amount of risk of a lawsuit when they’re starting out. It’s unlikely they will have a claim and most liability actions have a 2-year time limit from the date of injury to be filed.”

2. Take advantage of being claims free

If you’ve been claims free for at least a few years, you may be eligible for a large discount.

“Doctors without claims are a better risk. Once a doctor has one claim, they’re likely to have a second, which the research shows,” said Mr. Zetter.

The most common credit The Doctors Company offers is 3 years of being claim free – this earns doctors up to 25%, he said. Mr. Zetter explained that the criteria and size of The Doctors Company credit may depend on the state where physicians practice.

“We allowed insurance carriers that we acquired to continue with their own claim-free discount program such as Florida’s First Professionals Insurance Company we acquired in 2011,” he said.

Doctors with other medical malpractice insurers may also be eligible for a credit up to 25%. In some instances, they may have to be claims free for 5 or 10 years, say insurance experts.

It pays to shop around before purchasing insurance.

3. If you work part time, make sure your premium reflects that

Physicians who see patients part time can receive up to a 75% discount on their medical liability insurance premiums.

The discounts are based on the hours the physician works per week. The fewer hours worked, the larger the discount. This type of discount does not vary by specialty.

According to The Doctors Company, working 10 hours or less per week may entitle doctors to a 75% discount; working 11-20 hours per week may entitle them to a 50% discount, and working 21-30 hours per week may entitle them to a 25% discount. If you are in this situation, it pays to ask your insurer if there is a discount available to you.

4. Look into your professional medical society insurance company

“I would look at your state medical association [or] state specialty society and talk to your colleagues to learn what premiums they’re paying and about any discounts they’re getting,” advised Mr. Zetter.

Some state medical societies have formed their own liability companies and offer lower premiums to their members because “they’re organized and managed by doctors, which makes their premiums more competitive,” Dr. Price said.

Other state medical societies endorse specific insurance carriers and offer their members a 5% discount for enrolling with them.

5. Enroll in a risk management program

Most insurers offer online educational activities designed to improve patient safety and reduce the risk of a lawsuit. Physicians may be eligible for both premium discounts and CME credits.

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, operates in New York and offers physicians a premium discount of up to 5%, CME credit, and maintenance of certification credit for successfully completing its risk management program every other year.

ProAssurance members nationwide can earn 5% in premium discounts if they complete a 2-hour video series called “Back to Basics: Loss Prevention and Navigating Everyday Risks: Using Data to Drive Change.”

They can earn one credit for completing each webinar on topics such as “Medication Management: Minimizing Errors and Improving Safety” and “Opioid Prescribing: Keeping Patients Safe.”

MagMutual offers its insured physicians 1 CME credit for completing their specialty’s risk assessment and courses, which may be applied toward their premium discounts.

The Doctors Company offers its members a 5% premium discount if they complete 4 CME credits. One of its most popular courses is “How To Get Rid of a Difficult Patient.”

“Busy residents like the shorter case studies worth one-quarter credit that they can complete in 15 minutes,” said Ms. Boisvert.

“This is a good bargain from the physician’s standpoint and the fact that risk management education is offered online makes it a lot easier than going to a seminar in person,” said Dr. Price.

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