Neurology Reviews

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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

Large, physician-owned group practices are gaining ground as a popular form of practice, even as the number of physicians in solo and small practices declines, and employment maintains its appeal.

Ridofranz/Thinkstock

As physicians shift from owning private practices to employment in hospital systems, this countertrend is also taking place. Large group practices are growing in number, even as solo and small practices are in decline.

Do large, physician-owned groups bring benefits that beat employment? And how do large groups compare with smaller practices and new opportunities, such as private equity? You’ll find some answers here.
 

Working in large group practices

Large group practices with 50 or more physicians are enjoying a renaissance, even though physicians are still streaming into hospital systems. The share of physicians in large practices increased from 14.7% in 2018 to 17.2% in 2020, the largest 2-year change for this group, according to the American Medical Association.

“Physicians expect that large groups will treat them better than hospitals do,” says Robert Pearl, MD, former CEO of Permanente Medical Group, the nation’s largest physicians’ group. 

Compared with hospitals, “doctors would prefer working in a group practice, if all other things are equal,” says Dr. Pearl, who is now a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical School.

Large group practices can include both multispecialty groups and single-specialty groups. Groups in specialties like urology, orthopedics, and oncology have been growing in recent years, according to Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group in Virginia Beach, Va.

A group practice could also be an independent physicians association – a federation of small practices that share functions like negotiations with insurers and management. Physicians can also form larger groups for single purposes like running an accountable care organization.

Some large group practices can have a mix of partners and employees. In these groups, “some doctors either don’t want a partnership or aren’t offered one,” says Nathan Miller, CEO of the Medicus Firm, a physician recruitment company in Dallas. The AMA reports that about 10% of physicians are employees of large practices.

“Large groups like the Permanente Medical Group are not partnerships,” Dr. Pearl says. “They tend to be a corporation with a board of directors, and all the physicians are employees, but it’s a physician-led organization.”

Doctors in these groups can enjoy a great deal of control. While Permanente Medical Group is exclusively affiliated with Kaiser, which runs hospitals and an HMO, the group is an independent corporation run by its doctors, who are both shareholders and employees, Dr. Pearl says.

The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not medical groups in the strict sense of the word. They describe themselves as academic medical centers, but Dr. Pearl says, “Doctors have a tremendous amount of control there, particularly those in the most remunerative specialties.”

Pros of large groups 

Group practices are able to focus more on the physician participants’ needs and priorities, says Mr. Mertz. “In a hospital-based organization, physicians’ needs have to compete with the needs of the hospital. … In a large group, it can be easier to get policies changed and order equipment.”

However, for many physicians, their primary reason for joining a large group is having negotiating leverage with health insurance plans, and this leverage seems even more important today. It typically results in higher reimbursements, which could translate into higher pay. The higher practice income, however, could be negated by higher administrative overhead, which is endemic in large organizations.

Mr. Mertz says large groups also have the resources to recruit new doctors. Small practices, in contrast, often decide not to grow. The practice would at first need to guarantee the salary of a new partner, which could require existing partners to take a pay cut, which they often don’t want to do. “They’ll decide to ride the practice into the ground,” which means closing it down when they retire, he says.

Cons of large groups

One individual doctor may have relatively little input in decision-making in a large group, and strong leadership may be lacking. One study examining the pros and cons of large group practices found that lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers in large groups.

Physicians in large groups can also divide into competing factions. Mr. Mertz says rifts are more likely to take place in multispecialty groups, where higher-reimbursed proceduralists resent having to financially support lower-reimbursed primary care physicians. But it’s rare that such rifts actually break up the practice, he says.
 

Private practice vs. employment

Even as more physicians enter large groups, physicians continue to flee private practice in general. In 2020, the AMA found that the number of physicians in private practices had dropped nearly 5 percentage points since 2018, the largest 2-year drop recorded by the AMA.

The hardest hit are small groups of 10 physicians or fewer, once the backbone of U.S. medicine. A 2020 survey found that 53.7% of physicians still work in small practices of 10 or fewer physicians, compared with 61.4% in 2012.

Private practices tend to be partnerships, but younger physicians, for their part, often don’t want to become a partner. In a 2016 survey, only 22% of medical residents surveyed said they anticipate owning a stake in a practice someday.

What’s good about private practice?

The obvious advantage of private practice is having control. Physician-owners can choose staff, oversee finances, and decide on the direction the practice should take. They don’t have to worry about being fired, because the partnership agreement virtually guarantees each doctor’s place in the group.

The atmosphere in a small practice is often more relaxed. “Private practices tend to offer a family-like environment,” Mr. Miller says. Owners of small practices tend to have lower burnout than large practices, a 2018 study found.

Unlike hospital-employed doctors, private practitioners get to keep their ancillary income. “Physicians own the equipment and receive income generated from ancillary services, not just professional fees,” says Mr. Miller.

What’s negative about private practice?

Since small groups have little negotiating power with private payers, they can’t get favorable reimbursement rates. And while partners are protected from being fired, the practice could still go bankrupt.

Running a private practice means putting on an entrepreneurial hat. To develop a strong practice, you need to learn about marketing, finance, IT, contract negotiations, and facility management. “Most young doctors have no interest in this work,” Mr. Mertz says.

Value-based contracting has added another disadvantage for small practices. “It can be harder for small, independent groups to compete,” says Mike Belkin, JD, a divisional vice president at Merritt Hawkins, a physician recruitment company based in Dallas. “They don’t have the data and integration of services that are necessary for this.”
 

Employment in hospital systems

More than one-third of all physicians worked for hospitals in 2018, and hospitals’ share has been growing since then. In 2020, for the first time, the AMA found that more than half of all physicians were employed, and employment is mainly a hospital phenomenon.

The trend shows no signs of stopping. In 2019 and 2020, hospitals and other corporate entities acquired 20,900 physician practices, representing 29,800 doctors. “This trend will continue,” Dr. Pearl says. “The bigger will get bigger. It’s all about market control. Everyone wants to be wider, more vertical, and more powerful.”

Pros of hospital employment 

“The advantages of hospital employment are mostly financial,” Mr. Mertz says. Unlike a private practice, “there’s no financial risk to hospital employment because you don’t own it. You won’t be on the tab for any losses.”

“Hospitals usually offer a highly competitive salary with less emphasis on production than in a private practice,” he says. New physicians are typically paid a guaranteed salary in the first 1-3 years of employment.

“You don’t have any management responsibilities, as you would in a practice,” Mr. Mertz says. “The hospital has a professional management team to handle the business side. Most young doctors have no interest in this work.”

“Employed physicians have a built-in referral network at a hospital,” Mr. Miller says. This is especially an advantage for new physicians, who don’t yet have a referral network of their own.”

Cons of hospital employment

Physicians employed by a hospital lack control. “You don’t decide the hours you work, the schedules you follow, and the physical facility you work in, and, for the most part, you don’t pick your staff,” Mr. Mertz says.

Like any big organization, hospitals are bureaucratic. “If you want to purchase a new piece of equipment, your request goes up the chain of command,” Mr. Mertz says. “Your purchase has to fit into the budget.” (This can be the case with large groups, too.)

Many employed doctors chafe under this lack of control. In an earlier survey by Medscape, 45% of employed respondents didn’t like having limited influence in decision-making, and 32% said they had less control over their work or schedule.

It’s no wonder that a large percentage of physicians would rather work in practices than hospitals. According to a 2021 Medicus Firm survey, 23% of physicians are interested in working in hospitals, while 40% would rather work either in multispecialty or single-specialty groups, Mr. Miller reports.
 

Doctors have differing views of hospital employment

New physicians are apt to dismiss any negatives about hospitals. “Lack of autonomy often matters less to younger physicians, who were trained in team-based models,” Mr. Belkin says.

Many young doctors actually like working in a large organization. “Young doctors out of residency are used to having everything at their fingertips – labs and testing is in-house,” Mr. Mertz says.

On the other hand, doctors who were previously self-employed – a group that makes up almost one-third of all hospital-employed doctors – can often be dissatisfied with employment. In a 2014 Medscape survey, 26% of previously self-employed doctors said job satisfaction had not improved with employment.

Mr. Mertz says these doctors remember what it was like to be in charge of a practice. “If you once owned a practice, you can always compare what’s going on now with that experience, and that can make you frustrated.”
 

Hospitals have higher turnover

It’s much easier to leave an organization when you don’t have an ownership stake. The annual physician turnover rate at hospitals is 28%, compared with 7% at medical groups, according to a 2019 report.

Mr. Belkin says changing jobs has become a way of life for many doctors. “Staying at a job for only a few years is no longer a red flag,” he says. “Physicians are exploring different options. They might try group practice and switch to hospitals or vice versa.”

Physicians are now part of a high-turnover culture: Once in a new job, many are already thinking about the next one. A 2018 survey found that 46% of doctors planned to leave their position within 3 years.
 

Private equity ownership of practice

Selling majority control of your practice to a private equity firm is a relatively new phenomenon and accounts for a small share of physicians – just 4% in 2020. This trend was originally limited to certain specialties, such as anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and dermatology, but now many others are courted.

The deals work like this: Physicians sell majority control of their practice to investors in return for shares in the private equity practice, and they become employees of that practice. The private equity firm then adds more physicians to the practice and invests in infrastructure with the intention of selling the practice at a large profit, which is then shared with the original physicians.

Pros of private equity

The original owners of the practice stand to make a substantial profit if they are willing to wait several years for the practice to be built up and sold. “If they are patient, they could earn a bonanza,” Mr. Belkin says.

Private equity investment helps the practice expand. “It’s an alternative to going to the bank and borrowing money,” Mr. Mertz says.

Cons of private equity

Physicians lose control of their practice. A client of Mr. Mertz’s briefly considered a private equity offer and turned it down. “The private equity firm would have veto power over what the doctors wanted to do,” he says.

Mr. Belkin says the selling physicians typically lose income after the sale. “Money they earned from ancillary services now goes to the practice,” Mr. Belkin says. The selling doctors could potentially take up to a 30% cut in their compensation, according to Coker Capital Advisors.

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

Temporal artery biopsy has been the standard for diagnosing giant cell arteritis (GCA), but vascular ultrasound, a procedure that’s less invasive, less time-intensive, less expensive, and more convenient, has gained widespread use in Europe, and now clinics in the United States are adopting this approach and moving toward having rheumatologists take on the role of ultrasonographer.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

However, directors at these clinics – known as GCA fast-track clinics – caution that the bar can be high for adopting vascular ultrasound (VUS) as a tool to diagnose GCA. Ultrasonographers need specialized training to perform the task and an adequate caseload to maintain their skills. Clinics also need to be outfitted with high-definition ultrasound machines.

“It definitely takes adequate training and learning of how to adjust the settings on the ultrasound machine to be able to visualize the findings appropriately,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology and musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which has its own GCA fast-track clinic.

“And the clinical context is very important,” she said. “If you have a high suspicion for someone with temporal arteritis, or GCA, and the patient has been on steroids for weeks before you see them, the ultrasound findings may not show signs of the disease. In those cases in which the imaging is equivocal, we would still pursue a biopsy.”

The idea of the fast-track clinic is as the name implies: to quickly confirm the presence of GCA in a matter of hours, or days at the most, in an outpatient setting without the hassles of a biopsy. Temporal artery biopsy (TAB), by comparison, “is more costly because it requires operating room time, a surgical consultation, and surgery time, whereas ultrasound is a very inexpensive exam since it’s done in the clinic by the rheumatologist,” Dr. Kohler said.
 

European experience

Use of VUS to diagnose GCA is supplanting TAB in Europe and other countries. In Denmark alone – with a population of 6 million – three outpatient fast-track clinics are operating. The United States, with a population more than 50 times larger than Denmark’s, has six.

Stavros Chrysidis, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at the Hospital South West Jutland, one of the fast-track clinic sites in Denmark, led a recent multicenter study, known as EUREKA, of VUS in patients with suspected GCA. He and his colleagues reported in The Lancet Rheumatology that the sensitivity and specificity of VUS was superior to TAB in confirming a diagnosis of GCA. Dr. Chrysidis has instructed U.S. rheumatologists and ultrasonographers in performing and interpreting VUS for GCA.

The study emphasizes the importance of training for ultrasonographers, said Dr. Chrysidis, who regularly performs VUS at his institution. “The most important finding is that, when we apply VUS by systematically trained ultrasonographers using appropriate equipment in appropriate settings, it has excellent diagnostic accuracy on GCA,” he told this news organization.

He noted that The Lancet Rheumatology report is the first multicenter study of VUS for diagnosing GCA in which all the ultrasonographers participated in a standardized training program, which his group developed. “Ultrasound is very operator dependent,” he said. “That’s why the training is very important.”

The training occurred over a year and included two workshops consisting of 5 days of theoretical training on VUS; supervised hands-on evaluation of healthy individuals and patients with known GCA; and evaluation of ultrasound images. Over the course of the year, trainees performed at least 50 VUS evaluations, half of which were in patients with confirmed GCA. During the training period, an external rheumatologist with broad experience in VUS made the final diagnosis.

“The equipment and settings are very important because ultrasound can be very time consuming if you are not educated well and if your equipment is not adjusted well,” Dr. Chrysidis said. The equipment must be calibrated beforehand “so you don’t spend time on adjustments.”

For diagnosing temporal artery anomalies, the ultrasound equipment must have a resolution of 0.3-0.4 mm, he said. “When you have a transducer of 10 MHz, you cannot visualize changes smaller than 5 mm.”

The EUREKA study stated that VUS could replace TAB as a first-line diagnostic tool for GCA – provided the ultrasonographers are systematically trained and the equipment and settings are appropriate. In the Jutland clinic, VUS already has replaced TAB, Dr. Chrysidis said.

“In my department since 2017, when we started the fast-track clinic after the EUREKA study was terminated, we have performed three temporal artery biopsies in the last 4 years, and we screen 60-70 patients per year because we use ultrasound as the primary imaging,” he said. In cases when the results are inconclusive, they order a PET scan. “We don’t perform biopsies anymore,” he said.

U.S. fast-track clinic models

The fast-track clinic models in the United States vary. Results of a survey of the U.S. clinics were presented as an abstract at the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Some centers have a vasculitis specialist obtain and interpret the imaging. At others, a vasculitis specialist refers patients to a VUS-trained rheumatologist to perform and interpret the test. Another approach is to have vasculitis specialists refer patients to ultrasound technicians trained in VUS, with a vascular surgeon interpreting the images and either a VUS-trained rheumatologist or vascular medicine specialist verifying the images.

The take-home message of that survey is that “ultrasound evaluation should be considered in the hands of experts, realizing that not everyone has that skill set, but if it is available, it’s a way to expedite diagnosis and it can be helpful in managing the GCA patient in an appropriate way, quicker than trying to schedule cross-sectional imaging,” said Massachusetts General’s Dr. Kohler, who is a coauthor of the abstract. “Certainly, cross-sectional imaging also plays an important role, but when it comes to confirming whether to continue with treatment or not for a very serious condition, ultrasound is a quick way to get the answer.”

In addition to the fast-track clinic at Massachusetts General, the survey included fast-track clinics at the University of Washington, Seattle; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Loma Linda (Calif.) University; University of California, Los Angeles; and at a private practice, Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in the Washington area.
 

Advantages of VUS vs. TAB

At Massachusetts General, some of the rheumatologists are trained to perform VUS. The rheumatologists also perform the clinical evaluation of suspected cases of GCA. The advantage of VUS, Dr. Kohler said, is that the answer is “right there”; that is, the imaging yields a diagnosis almost instantaneously whereas a biopsy must be sent to a lab for analysis.

“Since a lot of patients with suspected vasculitis may already come to us on steroid therapy, and if there’s a low probability or low suspicion for vasculitis, [VUS] actually confirms that, and we’re able to taper prednisone or steroids quickly rather than keep them on a prolonged course.”

Alison Bays, MD, MPH, of the department of rheumatology at the University of Washington, said that the advantages of avoiding biopsy aren’t to be overlooked. “Temporal artery biopsies are invasive and carry surgical risks, especially as many of our patients are elderly,” she told this news organization.

“These patients occasionally refuse biopsy, but the acceptance of ultrasound is high,” Dr. Bays said. “Scheduling surgery can be more complicated, resulting in delays to biopsy and potentially higher rates of false negatives. Additionally, ultrasound has resulted in a higher rate of diagnosis with GCA as TAB misses large-vessel involvement.” The fast-track clinic at the university has evaluated 250 patients since it opened in 2017.

Dr. Bays and colleagues published the first United States study of a fast-track protocol using vascular sonographers. “Our group has demonstrated that fast-track clinics can rapidly and effectively evaluate patients, and we demonstrated a different method of evaluation using vascular sonographers rather than rheumatologists to do the vascular ultrasound,” she said. “It utilizes the familiarity vascular sonographers already have with imaging blood vessels.”

She added that the TABUL study in the United Kingdom in 2016 demonstrated that VUS yielded a savings of $686 (£484 as reported in the study), compared with TAB. “Further studies need to be done in the United States,” she said. “Beyond direct comparison of costs, reduction in steroid burden due to quick evaluation and diagnosis may carry additional benefits.”

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the division of rheumatology and the vascular section of the cardiology division collaborate on the GCA evaluation, said Sara Tedeschi, MD, MPH, codirector of the fast-track clinic there. Trained vascular technologists credentialed in the procedure and specifically trained in using VUS for evaluating arteritis perform the VUS. Cardiologists with a subspecialty in vascular medicine interpret the studies.

VUS patients have a rheumatology evaluation just before they have the ultrasound. “The rheumatology evaluation is then able to incorporate information from the VUS together with laboratory data, the patient’s history, and physical examination,” Dr. Tedeschi said.

“If the rheumatologist recommends a temporal artery biopsy as a next step, we arrange this with vascular surgery,” she said. “If the rheumatologist recommends other imaging such as MRA [magnetic resonance angiography] or PET-CT, we frequently review the images together with our colleagues in cardiovascular radiology and/or nuclear medicine.”

But in the United States, it will take some time for GCA fast-track clinics to become the standard, Dr. Tedeschi said. “Temporal artery biopsy may be faster to arrange in certain practice settings if VUS is not already being employed for giant cell arteritis evaluation,” she said.

Dr. Bays recognized this limitation, saying, “We are hoping that in the future, the American College of Rheumatology will consider vascular ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic test in diagnosis as rheumatologists and vascular sonographers gain familiarity over time.”

But that would mean that centers performing VUS for GCA would have to meet rigorous standards for the procedure. “With that, standardization of a protocol, high-quality equipment, and adequate training are necessary to ensure quality and reduce the chance of false-positive or false-negative results,” she said.

Dr. Chrysidis, Dr. Bays, and Dr. Tedeschi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohler is a board member of Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists.

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

Temporal artery biopsy has been the standard for diagnosing giant cell arteritis (GCA), but vascular ultrasound, a procedure that’s less invasive, less time-intensive, less expensive, and more convenient, has gained widespread use in Europe, and now clinics in the United States are adopting this approach and moving toward having rheumatologists take on the role of ultrasonographer.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

However, directors at these clinics – known as GCA fast-track clinics – caution that the bar can be high for adopting vascular ultrasound (VUS) as a tool to diagnose GCA. Ultrasonographers need specialized training to perform the task and an adequate caseload to maintain their skills. Clinics also need to be outfitted with high-definition ultrasound machines.

“It definitely takes adequate training and learning of how to adjust the settings on the ultrasound machine to be able to visualize the findings appropriately,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology and musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which has its own GCA fast-track clinic.

“And the clinical context is very important,” she said. “If you have a high suspicion for someone with temporal arteritis, or GCA, and the patient has been on steroids for weeks before you see them, the ultrasound findings may not show signs of the disease. In those cases in which the imaging is equivocal, we would still pursue a biopsy.”

The idea of the fast-track clinic is as the name implies: to quickly confirm the presence of GCA in a matter of hours, or days at the most, in an outpatient setting without the hassles of a biopsy. Temporal artery biopsy (TAB), by comparison, “is more costly because it requires operating room time, a surgical consultation, and surgery time, whereas ultrasound is a very inexpensive exam since it’s done in the clinic by the rheumatologist,” Dr. Kohler said.
 

European experience

Use of VUS to diagnose GCA is supplanting TAB in Europe and other countries. In Denmark alone – with a population of 6 million – three outpatient fast-track clinics are operating. The United States, with a population more than 50 times larger than Denmark’s, has six.

Stavros Chrysidis, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at the Hospital South West Jutland, one of the fast-track clinic sites in Denmark, led a recent multicenter study, known as EUREKA, of VUS in patients with suspected GCA. He and his colleagues reported in The Lancet Rheumatology that the sensitivity and specificity of VUS was superior to TAB in confirming a diagnosis of GCA. Dr. Chrysidis has instructed U.S. rheumatologists and ultrasonographers in performing and interpreting VUS for GCA.

The study emphasizes the importance of training for ultrasonographers, said Dr. Chrysidis, who regularly performs VUS at his institution. “The most important finding is that, when we apply VUS by systematically trained ultrasonographers using appropriate equipment in appropriate settings, it has excellent diagnostic accuracy on GCA,” he told this news organization.

He noted that The Lancet Rheumatology report is the first multicenter study of VUS for diagnosing GCA in which all the ultrasonographers participated in a standardized training program, which his group developed. “Ultrasound is very operator dependent,” he said. “That’s why the training is very important.”

The training occurred over a year and included two workshops consisting of 5 days of theoretical training on VUS; supervised hands-on evaluation of healthy individuals and patients with known GCA; and evaluation of ultrasound images. Over the course of the year, trainees performed at least 50 VUS evaluations, half of which were in patients with confirmed GCA. During the training period, an external rheumatologist with broad experience in VUS made the final diagnosis.

“The equipment and settings are very important because ultrasound can be very time consuming if you are not educated well and if your equipment is not adjusted well,” Dr. Chrysidis said. The equipment must be calibrated beforehand “so you don’t spend time on adjustments.”

For diagnosing temporal artery anomalies, the ultrasound equipment must have a resolution of 0.3-0.4 mm, he said. “When you have a transducer of 10 MHz, you cannot visualize changes smaller than 5 mm.”

The EUREKA study stated that VUS could replace TAB as a first-line diagnostic tool for GCA – provided the ultrasonographers are systematically trained and the equipment and settings are appropriate. In the Jutland clinic, VUS already has replaced TAB, Dr. Chrysidis said.

“In my department since 2017, when we started the fast-track clinic after the EUREKA study was terminated, we have performed three temporal artery biopsies in the last 4 years, and we screen 60-70 patients per year because we use ultrasound as the primary imaging,” he said. In cases when the results are inconclusive, they order a PET scan. “We don’t perform biopsies anymore,” he said.

U.S. fast-track clinic models

The fast-track clinic models in the United States vary. Results of a survey of the U.S. clinics were presented as an abstract at the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Some centers have a vasculitis specialist obtain and interpret the imaging. At others, a vasculitis specialist refers patients to a VUS-trained rheumatologist to perform and interpret the test. Another approach is to have vasculitis specialists refer patients to ultrasound technicians trained in VUS, with a vascular surgeon interpreting the images and either a VUS-trained rheumatologist or vascular medicine specialist verifying the images.

The take-home message of that survey is that “ultrasound evaluation should be considered in the hands of experts, realizing that not everyone has that skill set, but if it is available, it’s a way to expedite diagnosis and it can be helpful in managing the GCA patient in an appropriate way, quicker than trying to schedule cross-sectional imaging,” said Massachusetts General’s Dr. Kohler, who is a coauthor of the abstract. “Certainly, cross-sectional imaging also plays an important role, but when it comes to confirming whether to continue with treatment or not for a very serious condition, ultrasound is a quick way to get the answer.”

In addition to the fast-track clinic at Massachusetts General, the survey included fast-track clinics at the University of Washington, Seattle; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Loma Linda (Calif.) University; University of California, Los Angeles; and at a private practice, Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in the Washington area.
 

Advantages of VUS vs. TAB

At Massachusetts General, some of the rheumatologists are trained to perform VUS. The rheumatologists also perform the clinical evaluation of suspected cases of GCA. The advantage of VUS, Dr. Kohler said, is that the answer is “right there”; that is, the imaging yields a diagnosis almost instantaneously whereas a biopsy must be sent to a lab for analysis.

“Since a lot of patients with suspected vasculitis may already come to us on steroid therapy, and if there’s a low probability or low suspicion for vasculitis, [VUS] actually confirms that, and we’re able to taper prednisone or steroids quickly rather than keep them on a prolonged course.”

Alison Bays, MD, MPH, of the department of rheumatology at the University of Washington, said that the advantages of avoiding biopsy aren’t to be overlooked. “Temporal artery biopsies are invasive and carry surgical risks, especially as many of our patients are elderly,” she told this news organization.

“These patients occasionally refuse biopsy, but the acceptance of ultrasound is high,” Dr. Bays said. “Scheduling surgery can be more complicated, resulting in delays to biopsy and potentially higher rates of false negatives. Additionally, ultrasound has resulted in a higher rate of diagnosis with GCA as TAB misses large-vessel involvement.” The fast-track clinic at the university has evaluated 250 patients since it opened in 2017.

Dr. Bays and colleagues published the first United States study of a fast-track protocol using vascular sonographers. “Our group has demonstrated that fast-track clinics can rapidly and effectively evaluate patients, and we demonstrated a different method of evaluation using vascular sonographers rather than rheumatologists to do the vascular ultrasound,” she said. “It utilizes the familiarity vascular sonographers already have with imaging blood vessels.”

She added that the TABUL study in the United Kingdom in 2016 demonstrated that VUS yielded a savings of $686 (£484 as reported in the study), compared with TAB. “Further studies need to be done in the United States,” she said. “Beyond direct comparison of costs, reduction in steroid burden due to quick evaluation and diagnosis may carry additional benefits.”

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the division of rheumatology and the vascular section of the cardiology division collaborate on the GCA evaluation, said Sara Tedeschi, MD, MPH, codirector of the fast-track clinic there. Trained vascular technologists credentialed in the procedure and specifically trained in using VUS for evaluating arteritis perform the VUS. Cardiologists with a subspecialty in vascular medicine interpret the studies.

VUS patients have a rheumatology evaluation just before they have the ultrasound. “The rheumatology evaluation is then able to incorporate information from the VUS together with laboratory data, the patient’s history, and physical examination,” Dr. Tedeschi said.

“If the rheumatologist recommends a temporal artery biopsy as a next step, we arrange this with vascular surgery,” she said. “If the rheumatologist recommends other imaging such as MRA [magnetic resonance angiography] or PET-CT, we frequently review the images together with our colleagues in cardiovascular radiology and/or nuclear medicine.”

But in the United States, it will take some time for GCA fast-track clinics to become the standard, Dr. Tedeschi said. “Temporal artery biopsy may be faster to arrange in certain practice settings if VUS is not already being employed for giant cell arteritis evaluation,” she said.

Dr. Bays recognized this limitation, saying, “We are hoping that in the future, the American College of Rheumatology will consider vascular ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic test in diagnosis as rheumatologists and vascular sonographers gain familiarity over time.”

But that would mean that centers performing VUS for GCA would have to meet rigorous standards for the procedure. “With that, standardization of a protocol, high-quality equipment, and adequate training are necessary to ensure quality and reduce the chance of false-positive or false-negative results,” she said.

Dr. Chrysidis, Dr. Bays, and Dr. Tedeschi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohler is a board member of Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists.

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

Temporal artery biopsy has been the standard for diagnosing giant cell arteritis (GCA), but vascular ultrasound, a procedure that’s less invasive, less time-intensive, less expensive, and more convenient, has gained widespread use in Europe, and now clinics in the United States are adopting this approach and moving toward having rheumatologists take on the role of ultrasonographer.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

However, directors at these clinics – known as GCA fast-track clinics – caution that the bar can be high for adopting vascular ultrasound (VUS) as a tool to diagnose GCA. Ultrasonographers need specialized training to perform the task and an adequate caseload to maintain their skills. Clinics also need to be outfitted with high-definition ultrasound machines.

“It definitely takes adequate training and learning of how to adjust the settings on the ultrasound machine to be able to visualize the findings appropriately,” said Minna Kohler, MD, director of the rheumatology and musculoskeletal ultrasound program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which has its own GCA fast-track clinic.

“And the clinical context is very important,” she said. “If you have a high suspicion for someone with temporal arteritis, or GCA, and the patient has been on steroids for weeks before you see them, the ultrasound findings may not show signs of the disease. In those cases in which the imaging is equivocal, we would still pursue a biopsy.”

The idea of the fast-track clinic is as the name implies: to quickly confirm the presence of GCA in a matter of hours, or days at the most, in an outpatient setting without the hassles of a biopsy. Temporal artery biopsy (TAB), by comparison, “is more costly because it requires operating room time, a surgical consultation, and surgery time, whereas ultrasound is a very inexpensive exam since it’s done in the clinic by the rheumatologist,” Dr. Kohler said.
 

European experience

Use of VUS to diagnose GCA is supplanting TAB in Europe and other countries. In Denmark alone – with a population of 6 million – three outpatient fast-track clinics are operating. The United States, with a population more than 50 times larger than Denmark’s, has six.

Stavros Chrysidis, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology at the Hospital South West Jutland, one of the fast-track clinic sites in Denmark, led a recent multicenter study, known as EUREKA, of VUS in patients with suspected GCA. He and his colleagues reported in The Lancet Rheumatology that the sensitivity and specificity of VUS was superior to TAB in confirming a diagnosis of GCA. Dr. Chrysidis has instructed U.S. rheumatologists and ultrasonographers in performing and interpreting VUS for GCA.

The study emphasizes the importance of training for ultrasonographers, said Dr. Chrysidis, who regularly performs VUS at his institution. “The most important finding is that, when we apply VUS by systematically trained ultrasonographers using appropriate equipment in appropriate settings, it has excellent diagnostic accuracy on GCA,” he told this news organization.

He noted that The Lancet Rheumatology report is the first multicenter study of VUS for diagnosing GCA in which all the ultrasonographers participated in a standardized training program, which his group developed. “Ultrasound is very operator dependent,” he said. “That’s why the training is very important.”

The training occurred over a year and included two workshops consisting of 5 days of theoretical training on VUS; supervised hands-on evaluation of healthy individuals and patients with known GCA; and evaluation of ultrasound images. Over the course of the year, trainees performed at least 50 VUS evaluations, half of which were in patients with confirmed GCA. During the training period, an external rheumatologist with broad experience in VUS made the final diagnosis.

“The equipment and settings are very important because ultrasound can be very time consuming if you are not educated well and if your equipment is not adjusted well,” Dr. Chrysidis said. The equipment must be calibrated beforehand “so you don’t spend time on adjustments.”

For diagnosing temporal artery anomalies, the ultrasound equipment must have a resolution of 0.3-0.4 mm, he said. “When you have a transducer of 10 MHz, you cannot visualize changes smaller than 5 mm.”

The EUREKA study stated that VUS could replace TAB as a first-line diagnostic tool for GCA – provided the ultrasonographers are systematically trained and the equipment and settings are appropriate. In the Jutland clinic, VUS already has replaced TAB, Dr. Chrysidis said.

“In my department since 2017, when we started the fast-track clinic after the EUREKA study was terminated, we have performed three temporal artery biopsies in the last 4 years, and we screen 60-70 patients per year because we use ultrasound as the primary imaging,” he said. In cases when the results are inconclusive, they order a PET scan. “We don’t perform biopsies anymore,” he said.

U.S. fast-track clinic models

The fast-track clinic models in the United States vary. Results of a survey of the U.S. clinics were presented as an abstract at the 2021 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Some centers have a vasculitis specialist obtain and interpret the imaging. At others, a vasculitis specialist refers patients to a VUS-trained rheumatologist to perform and interpret the test. Another approach is to have vasculitis specialists refer patients to ultrasound technicians trained in VUS, with a vascular surgeon interpreting the images and either a VUS-trained rheumatologist or vascular medicine specialist verifying the images.

The take-home message of that survey is that “ultrasound evaluation should be considered in the hands of experts, realizing that not everyone has that skill set, but if it is available, it’s a way to expedite diagnosis and it can be helpful in managing the GCA patient in an appropriate way, quicker than trying to schedule cross-sectional imaging,” said Massachusetts General’s Dr. Kohler, who is a coauthor of the abstract. “Certainly, cross-sectional imaging also plays an important role, but when it comes to confirming whether to continue with treatment or not for a very serious condition, ultrasound is a quick way to get the answer.”

In addition to the fast-track clinic at Massachusetts General, the survey included fast-track clinics at the University of Washington, Seattle; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; Loma Linda (Calif.) University; University of California, Los Angeles; and at a private practice, Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in the Washington area.
 

Advantages of VUS vs. TAB

At Massachusetts General, some of the rheumatologists are trained to perform VUS. The rheumatologists also perform the clinical evaluation of suspected cases of GCA. The advantage of VUS, Dr. Kohler said, is that the answer is “right there”; that is, the imaging yields a diagnosis almost instantaneously whereas a biopsy must be sent to a lab for analysis.

“Since a lot of patients with suspected vasculitis may already come to us on steroid therapy, and if there’s a low probability or low suspicion for vasculitis, [VUS] actually confirms that, and we’re able to taper prednisone or steroids quickly rather than keep them on a prolonged course.”

Alison Bays, MD, MPH, of the department of rheumatology at the University of Washington, said that the advantages of avoiding biopsy aren’t to be overlooked. “Temporal artery biopsies are invasive and carry surgical risks, especially as many of our patients are elderly,” she told this news organization.

“These patients occasionally refuse biopsy, but the acceptance of ultrasound is high,” Dr. Bays said. “Scheduling surgery can be more complicated, resulting in delays to biopsy and potentially higher rates of false negatives. Additionally, ultrasound has resulted in a higher rate of diagnosis with GCA as TAB misses large-vessel involvement.” The fast-track clinic at the university has evaluated 250 patients since it opened in 2017.

Dr. Bays and colleagues published the first United States study of a fast-track protocol using vascular sonographers. “Our group has demonstrated that fast-track clinics can rapidly and effectively evaluate patients, and we demonstrated a different method of evaluation using vascular sonographers rather than rheumatologists to do the vascular ultrasound,” she said. “It utilizes the familiarity vascular sonographers already have with imaging blood vessels.”

She added that the TABUL study in the United Kingdom in 2016 demonstrated that VUS yielded a savings of $686 (£484 as reported in the study), compared with TAB. “Further studies need to be done in the United States,” she said. “Beyond direct comparison of costs, reduction in steroid burden due to quick evaluation and diagnosis may carry additional benefits.”

At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the division of rheumatology and the vascular section of the cardiology division collaborate on the GCA evaluation, said Sara Tedeschi, MD, MPH, codirector of the fast-track clinic there. Trained vascular technologists credentialed in the procedure and specifically trained in using VUS for evaluating arteritis perform the VUS. Cardiologists with a subspecialty in vascular medicine interpret the studies.

VUS patients have a rheumatology evaluation just before they have the ultrasound. “The rheumatology evaluation is then able to incorporate information from the VUS together with laboratory data, the patient’s history, and physical examination,” Dr. Tedeschi said.

“If the rheumatologist recommends a temporal artery biopsy as a next step, we arrange this with vascular surgery,” she said. “If the rheumatologist recommends other imaging such as MRA [magnetic resonance angiography] or PET-CT, we frequently review the images together with our colleagues in cardiovascular radiology and/or nuclear medicine.”

But in the United States, it will take some time for GCA fast-track clinics to become the standard, Dr. Tedeschi said. “Temporal artery biopsy may be faster to arrange in certain practice settings if VUS is not already being employed for giant cell arteritis evaluation,” she said.

Dr. Bays recognized this limitation, saying, “We are hoping that in the future, the American College of Rheumatology will consider vascular ultrasound as a first-line diagnostic test in diagnosis as rheumatologists and vascular sonographers gain familiarity over time.”

But that would mean that centers performing VUS for GCA would have to meet rigorous standards for the procedure. “With that, standardization of a protocol, high-quality equipment, and adequate training are necessary to ensure quality and reduce the chance of false-positive or false-negative results,” she said.

Dr. Chrysidis, Dr. Bays, and Dr. Tedeschi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohler is a board member of Ultrasound School of North American Rheumatologists.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

Online reviews and star ratings are the most important factor in choosing a new health care provider, according to a new survey from Press Ganey, a provider of patient satisfaction surveys. According to the data, this online information is more important to consumers in selecting a physician than another doctor’s referral and is more than twice as important when choosing a primary care physician.

m-imagephotography/Thinkstock.com

In fact, 83% of respondents said they went online to read reviews of a physician after receiving a referral from another provider.

The online research trend reflects not only the increased familiarity of all generations with the internet but also the growing consumerization of health care, Thomas Jeffrey, president of the Sullivan/Luallin Group, a patient experience consulting firm, told this news organization.

“According to patient satisfaction surveys, people are becoming health care consumers more than in the past,” he noted. “Historically, we didn’t look at health care as a consumer product. But, with high deductibles and copays, doctor visits can represent a pretty significant out-of-pocket expense. As it begins to hit folks’ pocketbooks, they become more savvy shoppers.”

Digital preferences for providers were gaining “positive momentum” even before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the crisis “drove upticks in some consumer digital behaviors,” the Press Ganey report pointed out.

Mr. Jeffrey agreed, noting that this finding matches what Sullivan/Luallin has discovered in its research. “I think the pandemic pushed people to engage more online,” he said. “The highest net promoter score [likelihood to recommend in market surveys] for a pharmacy is the Amazon pharmacy, which is an online-based delivery service. Then you have telehealth visits, which are more convenient in many ways.”
 

How patients search online

In choosing a new primary care doctor, 51.1% go on the web first, 23.8% seek a referral from another health care provider, and 4.4% get information from an insurer or a benefits manager, according to the survey.

The factors that matter most to consumers when they pick any provider, in order, are online ratings and reviews of the physician, referral from a current doctor, ratings and reviews of the facility, and the quality and completeness of a doctor’s profile on a website or online directory. The doctor’s online presence and the quality of their website are also important.

According to Press Ganey, search engines like Google are the most used digital resources, with 65.4% of consumers employing them to find a doctor. However, consumers now use an average of 2.7 sites in their search. The leading destinations are a hospital or a clinic site, WebMD, Healthgrades, and Facebook. (This news organization is owned by WebMD.)

Compared with 2019, the report said, there has been a 22.8% decline in the use of search engines for seeking a doctor and a 53.7% increase in the use of health care review sites such as Healthgrades and Vitals.

When reading provider reviews, consumers look for more recent reviews and want the reviews to be “authentic and informative.” They also value the star ratings. About 84%of respondents said they wouldn’t book an appointment with a referred provider that had a rating of less than four stars.

Overall, the top reasons why people are deterred from making an appointment are difficulty contacting the office, the poor quality of online reviews, and an average online rating of less than four stars.

The vast majority of respondents (77%) said they believe internet reviews reflect their own experience with a provider organization, and only 2.6% said the reviews were inaccurate. Another finding of the survey indicates that this attention of patients to reviews of their own provider doesn’t represent idle curiosity: About 57% of Baby Boomers and 45% of millennials/Gen Z’ers said they’d written online reviews of a doctor or a hospital.
 

Factors in patient loyalty

The Press Ganey survey asked which of several factors, besides excellent care, patients weighed when giving a five-star review to a health care provider.

Quality of customer service was rated first by 70.8% of respondents, followed by cleanliness of facilities (67.5%), communication (63.4%), the provider’s bedside manner (63%), ease of appointment booking (58.8%), ease of patient intake/registration (52.3%), quality and accuracy of information (40.1%), availability of telehealth services (21.7%), and waiting room amenities (21.8%).

The report explained that “quality of customer service” means “demeanor, attentiveness, and helpfulness of staff and practitioners.” “Communication” refers to things like follow-up appointment reminders and annual checkup reminders.

According to Mr. Jeffrey, these factors were considered more important than a doctor’s bedside manner because of the team care approach in most physician offices. “We see a lot more folks derive their notion of quality from continuity of care. And if they feel the physician they love is being supported by a less than competent team, that can impact significantly their sense of the quality of care,” he said.
 

Online appointment booking is a must

To win over the online consumer, Press Ganey emphasized, practices should ensure that provider listings are accurate and complete. In addition, offering online appointment booking can avoid the top challenge in making a new appointment, which is getting through to the office.

Mr. Jeffrey concurred, although he notes that practices have to be careful about how they enable patients to select appointment slots online. He suggests that an appointment request form on a patient portal first ask what the purpose of the visit is and that it offer five or so options. If the request fits into a routine visit category, the provider’s calendar pops up and the patient can select a convenient time slot. If it’s something else, an appointment scheduler calls the patient back.

“There needs to be greater access to standard appointments online,” he said. “While privacy is an issue, you can use the patient portal that most EHRs have to provide online booking. If you want to succeed going forward, that’s going to be a major plus.”

Of course, to do any of this, including reading provider reviews, a consumer needs a good internet connection and a mobile or desktop device. While broadband internet access is still not available in some communities, the breakdown of the survey respondents by demographics shows that low-income people were included.

Mr. Jeffrey doesn’t believe that a lack of internet access or digital devices prevents many Americans from going online today. “Even in poor communities, most people have internet access through their smartphones. Even baby boomers are familiar with smartphones. I haven’t seen internet access be a big barrier for low-income households, because they all have access to phones.”

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

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

As the pandemic shows no signs of ending, primary care doctors may be reassured that delivering care via video teleconferencing can be as effective as usual in-person consultation for several common health conditions.

This was a finding of a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine involving a review of literature on video teleconferencing (VTC) visits, which was authored by Jordan Albritton, PhD, MPH and his colleagues.

The authors found generally comparable patient outcomes as well as no differences in health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life when visits conducted using VTC were compared with usual care.

While VTC may work best for monitoring patients with chronic conditions, it can also be effective for acute care, said Dr. Albritton, who is a research public health analyst at RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C., in an interview.

The investigators analyzed 20 randomized controlled trials of at least 50 patients and acceptable risk of bias in which VTC was used either for main or adjunct care delivery. Published from 2013 to 2019, these studies looked at care for diabetes and pain management, as well as some respiratory, neurologic, and cardiovascular conditions. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve any added in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group, the investigators found.

“We excluded conditions such as substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management for which there was sufficient prior evidence of the benefit of VTC,” Dr. Albritton said in an interview. “But I don’t think our results would have been substantially different if we had included these other diseases. We found general evidence in the literature that VTC is effective for a broader range of conditions.”

In some cases, such as if changes in a patient’s condition triggered an automatic virtual visit, the author said he thinks VTC may lead to even greater effectiveness.

“The doctor and patient could figure out on the spot what’s going on and perhaps change the medication,” Dr. Albritton explained.

In general agreement is Julia L. Frydman, MD, assistant professor in the Brookdale Department of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the RTI research.

“Telemedicine has promise across many medical subspecialties, and what we need now are more studies to understand the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians as well as the impact of telemedicine on health outcomes and healthcare utilization.”

In acknowledgment of their utility, video visits are on the rise in the United States. A 2020 survey found that 22% of patients and 80% of physicians reported having participated in a video visit, three times the rate of the previous year. The authors noted that policy changes enacted to support telehealth strategies during the pandemic are expected to remain in place, and although patients are returning to in-person care, the virtual visit market will likely continue growing.
 

Increased telemedicine use by older adults

“We’ve seen an exciting expansion of telemedicine use among older adults, and we need to focus on continuing to meet their needs,” Dr. Frydman said.

In a recent study of televisits during the pandemic, Dr. Frydman’s group found a fivefold greater uptake of remote consultations by seniors – from 5% to 25%. Although in-person visits were far more common among older adults.

A specific advantage of video-based over audio-only telehealth, noted Dr. Albritton, is that physicians can directly observe patients in their home environment. Sharing that view is Deepa Iyengar, MBBS/MD,MPH, professor of family medicine at McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, where, she said, “the pandemic has put VTC use into overdrive.”

According to Dr. Iyengar, who was not involved in the RTI research, the video component definitely represents value-added over phone calls. “You can pick up visual cues on video that you might not see if the patient came in and you can see what the home environment is like – whether there are a lot of loose rugs on the floor or broken or missing light bulbs,” she said in an interview.
 

‘VTC is here to stay’

In other parts of the country, doctors are finding virtual care useful – and more common. “VTC is here to stay, for sure – the horse is out of the barn,” said Cheryl L. Wilkes, MD, an internist at Northwestern Medicine and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “The RTI study shows no harm from VTC and also shows it may even improve clinical outcomes.”

Video visits can also save patients high parking fees at clinics and spare the sick or elderly from having to hire caregivers to bring them into the office or from having to walk blocks in dangerous weather conditions, she added. “And I can do a virtual visit on the fly or at night when a relative or caregiver is home from work to be there with the patient.”

In addition to being beneficial for following up with patients with chronic diseases such as hypertension or diabetes, VTC may be able to replace some visits that have traditionally required hands-on care, said Dr. Wilkes.

She said she knows a cardiologist who has refined a process whereby a patient – say, one who may have edema – is asked to perform a maneuver via VTC and then display the result to the doctor: The doctor says, “put your leg up and press on it hard for 10 seconds and then show me what it looks like,” according to Dr. Wilkes.

The key now is to identify the best persons across specialties from neurology to rheumatology to videotape ways they’ve created to help their patients participate virtually in consults traditionally done at the office, Dr. Wilkes noted.

But some conditions will always require palpation and the use of a stethoscope, according Dr. Iyengar.

“If someone has an ulcer, I have to be able to feel it,” she said.

And while some maternity care can be given virtually – for instance, if a mother-to be develops a bad cold – hands-on obstetrical care to check the position and health of the baby obviously has to be done in person. “So VTC is definitely going to be a welcome addition but not a replacement,” Dr. Iyengar said.

Gaps in research on VTC visits

Many questions remain regarding the overall usefulness of VTC visits for certain patient groups, according to the authors.

They highlighted, for example, the dearth of data on subgroups or on underserved and vulnerable populations, with no head-to-head studies identified in their review. In addition, they found no studies examining VTC versus usual care for patients with concurrent conditions or on its effect on health equity and disparities.

“It’s now our job to understand the ongoing barriers to telemedicine access, including the digital divide and the usability of telemedicine platforms, and design interventions that overcome them,” Dr. Frydman said. “At the same time, we need to make sure we’re understanding and respecting the preferences of older adults in terms of how they access health care.”

This study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Dr. Albritton is employed by RTI International, the contractor responsible for conducting the research and developing the manuscript. Several coauthors disclosed support from or contracts with PCORI. One coauthor’s spouse holds stock in private health companies. Dr. Frydman, Dr. Iyengar, and Dr. Wilkes disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

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

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

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

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

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

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As more indoor venues require proof of vaccination for entrance and with winter — as well as omicron, a new COVID variant — looming, scientists and public health officials are debating when it will be time to change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

It’s been more than six months since many Americans finished their vaccination course against COVID; statistically, their immunity is waning.

At the same time, cases of infections with the Omicron variant have been reported in at least 17 states, as of Dec. 6. Omicron is distinguished by at least 50 mutations, some of which appear to be associated with increased transmissibility. The World Health Organization dubbed it a variant of concern on Nov. 26.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone 18 and older get a COVID booster shot, revising its narrower guidance that only people 50 and up “should” get a shot while younger adults could choose whether or not to do so. Scientists assume the additional shots will offer significant protection from the new variant, though they do not know for certain how much.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, during a White House press briefing was unequivocal in advising the public. “Get boosted now,” Dr. Fauci said, adding urgency to the current federal guidance. About a quarter of U.S. adults have received additional vaccine doses.

“The definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ has not changed. That’s, you know, after your second dose of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, after your single dose of a Johnson & Johnson vaccine,” said the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, during a Nov. 30 White House briefing on COVID. “We are absolutely encouraging those who are eligible for a boost six months after those mRNA doses to get your boost. But we are not changing the definition of ‘fully vaccinated’ right now.” A booster is recommended two months after receiving the J&J shot.

But that, she noted, could change: “As that science evolves, we will look at whether we need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated.’”

Still, the Democratic governors of Connecticut and New Mexico are sending a different signal in their states, as are some countries — such as Israel, which arguably has been the most aggressive nation in its approach. Some scientists point out that many vaccines involve three doses over six months for robust long-term protection, such as the shot against hepatitis. So “fully vaccinated” may need to include shot No. 3 to be considered a full course.

“In my view, if you were vaccinated more than six months ago, you’re not fully vaccinated,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont said Nov. 18 during a press briefing. He was encouraging everyone to get boosted at that time, even before the federal government authorized extra shots for everyone.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham had a similar response in mid-November, saying she defined “fully vaccinated” as receiving three shots of the mRNA type. She also opened up booster eligibility to all of her state residents before the CDC and Food and Drug Administration did.

What do the varying views on the evolving science mean for vaccine requirements imposed on travelers, or by schools or workplaces? And what about businesses that have required patrons to provide proof of vaccination?

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania, said the CDC’s stronger recommendation for everyone to get boosted signals to him that a booster is now part of the vaccine regimen. Yet Dr. Offit, who is also a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, wrote a joint op-ed this week in which he and two other scientists argued that boosters were not yet needed for everyone and that healthy young people should wait to see whether an Omicron-specific booster might be needed.

“I think when the CDC said they are recommending a third dose, they just made the statement that this is a three-dose vaccine series,” Dr. Offit told KHN. “And, frankly, I think it’s going to throw a wrench into mandates.”

Yet to be determined is whether restaurants or other places of business will look more closely at vaccine cards for the booster.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said it’s too early to say. “For now, businesses should stay focused on current guidelines,” he said.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, in Washington, said the question of whether you are fully vaccinated with just two doses or need a booster is a question of semantics. COVID immunity level is the more important issue.

Dr. Siegel said he thinks more suitable terminology would be to call someone “appropriately” or “adequately” vaccinated against COVID rather than “fully” vaccinated, since it’s possible that more boosters could be needed in the future — making “full vaccination” a moving target.

But, as with so many aspects of the pandemic, ambiguity prevails — both in federal guidance on the definition of “fully vaccinated” and in entrance policies, which vary by state, school and business.

Right now, businesses don’t appear to be checking for boosters, but that could change. So, it may be wise to first check the requirements — lest patrons present a two-shot vaccine passport, only to be turned away as inadequately protected.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Individuals diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have higher volumes of white-matter hyperintensities (WMHs), according to a new analysis of data from the SHIP-Trend-0 cohort in Western Pomerania, Germany, which is part of the Study of Health In Pomerania. The association was true for individual measures of OSA, including apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI).

WMHs are often seen on MRI in older people and in patients with stroke or dementia, and they may be an indicator of cerebral small-vessel disease. They are linked to greater risk of abnormal gait, worsening balance, depression, cognitive decline, dementia, stroke, and death. Suggested mechanisms for harms from WMHs include ischemia, hypoxia, hypoperfusion, inflammation, and demyelination.

WMHs have been linked to vascular risk factors like smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. Brain pathology studies have found loss of myelin, axonal loss, and scarring close to WMHs.

Although a few studies have looked for associations between WMHs and OSA, they have yielded inconsistent results. The new work employed highly standardized data collection and more complete covariate adjustment. The results, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest a novel, and potentially treatable, pathological WMH mechanism, according to the authors.

“This is an important study. It has strong methodology. The automated analysis of WMH in a large population-based cohort helps to eliminate several biases that can occur in this type of assessment. The data analysis was massive, with adequate control of all potential confounders and testing for interactions. This generated robust results,” said Diego Z. Carvalho, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Carvalho is an assistant professor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Worse apnea, worse hyperintensity

“The association varies according to the degree of apnea severity, so mild OSA is probably not associated with increased WMH, while severe OSA is mostly likely driving most of the associations,” said Dr. Carvalho.

If a causal mechanism were to be proven, it would “bring a stronger call for treatment of severe OSA patients, particularly those with increased risk for small-vessel disease, [such as] patients with metabolic syndrome. Likewise, patients with severe OSA would be the best candidates for therapeutic trials with [continuous positive airway pressure] with or without possible adjunctive neuroprotective treatment for halting or slowing down WMH progression,” said Dr. Carvalho.

Stuart McCarter, MD, who is an instructor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., also found the results interesting but pointed out that much more work needs to be done. “While they found a relationship between OSA as well as OSA severity and WMH despite adjusting for other known confounders, it is unlikely that it is as simple as OSA is the main causal factor for WMH, given the complex relationship between OSA, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome. However, this data does highlight the importance of considering OSA in addition to other more traditional risk factors when considering modifiable risk factors for brain aging,” said Dr. McCarter. The study cohort was mostly of White European ancestry, so more work also needs to be done in other racial groups.

The study underlines the importance of screening among individuals with cognitive impairment. “If OSA represents a modifiable risk factor for WMH and associated cognitive decline, then it would represent one of the few potentially treatable etiologies, or at least contributors of cognitive impairment,” said Dr. McCarter.

The SHIP-Trend-0 cohort is drawn from adults in Western Pomerania. The researchers analyzed data from 529 patients who had WMH and for whom intracranial volume data were available. Each member of the cohort also underwent polysomnography.

Based on AHI criteria, 24% of the overall sample had mild OSA, 10% had moderate OSA, and 6% had severe OSA.

After adjustment for sex, age, intracranial volume, and body weight, WMH volume was associated with AHI (beta = 0.024; P < .001) and ODI (beta = 0.033; P < .001). WMH counts were also associated with AHI (beta = 0.008; P = .01) and ODI (beta = 0.011; P = .02).

The effect size increased with greater OSA severity, as measured by AHI for both WMH volume (beta = 0.312, 0.480, and 1.255 for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively) and WMH count (beta = 0.129, 0.107, and 0.419). The ODI regression models showed similar associations for WMH volume (beta = 0.426, 1.030, and 1.130) and WMH count (beta = 0.141, 0.315, and 0.538).

Dr. Carvalho and Dr. McCarter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Individuals diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have higher volumes of white-matter hyperintensities (WMHs), according to a new analysis of data from the SHIP-Trend-0 cohort in Western Pomerania, Germany, which is part of the Study of Health In Pomerania. The association was true for individual measures of OSA, including apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI).

WMHs are often seen on MRI in older people and in patients with stroke or dementia, and they may be an indicator of cerebral small-vessel disease. They are linked to greater risk of abnormal gait, worsening balance, depression, cognitive decline, dementia, stroke, and death. Suggested mechanisms for harms from WMHs include ischemia, hypoxia, hypoperfusion, inflammation, and demyelination.

WMHs have been linked to vascular risk factors like smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. Brain pathology studies have found loss of myelin, axonal loss, and scarring close to WMHs.

Although a few studies have looked for associations between WMHs and OSA, they have yielded inconsistent results. The new work employed highly standardized data collection and more complete covariate adjustment. The results, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest a novel, and potentially treatable, pathological WMH mechanism, according to the authors.

“This is an important study. It has strong methodology. The automated analysis of WMH in a large population-based cohort helps to eliminate several biases that can occur in this type of assessment. The data analysis was massive, with adequate control of all potential confounders and testing for interactions. This generated robust results,” said Diego Z. Carvalho, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Carvalho is an assistant professor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Worse apnea, worse hyperintensity

“The association varies according to the degree of apnea severity, so mild OSA is probably not associated with increased WMH, while severe OSA is mostly likely driving most of the associations,” said Dr. Carvalho.

If a causal mechanism were to be proven, it would “bring a stronger call for treatment of severe OSA patients, particularly those with increased risk for small-vessel disease, [such as] patients with metabolic syndrome. Likewise, patients with severe OSA would be the best candidates for therapeutic trials with [continuous positive airway pressure] with or without possible adjunctive neuroprotective treatment for halting or slowing down WMH progression,” said Dr. Carvalho.

Stuart McCarter, MD, who is an instructor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., also found the results interesting but pointed out that much more work needs to be done. “While they found a relationship between OSA as well as OSA severity and WMH despite adjusting for other known confounders, it is unlikely that it is as simple as OSA is the main causal factor for WMH, given the complex relationship between OSA, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome. However, this data does highlight the importance of considering OSA in addition to other more traditional risk factors when considering modifiable risk factors for brain aging,” said Dr. McCarter. The study cohort was mostly of White European ancestry, so more work also needs to be done in other racial groups.

The study underlines the importance of screening among individuals with cognitive impairment. “If OSA represents a modifiable risk factor for WMH and associated cognitive decline, then it would represent one of the few potentially treatable etiologies, or at least contributors of cognitive impairment,” said Dr. McCarter.

The SHIP-Trend-0 cohort is drawn from adults in Western Pomerania. The researchers analyzed data from 529 patients who had WMH and for whom intracranial volume data were available. Each member of the cohort also underwent polysomnography.

Based on AHI criteria, 24% of the overall sample had mild OSA, 10% had moderate OSA, and 6% had severe OSA.

After adjustment for sex, age, intracranial volume, and body weight, WMH volume was associated with AHI (beta = 0.024; P < .001) and ODI (beta = 0.033; P < .001). WMH counts were also associated with AHI (beta = 0.008; P = .01) and ODI (beta = 0.011; P = .02).

The effect size increased with greater OSA severity, as measured by AHI for both WMH volume (beta = 0.312, 0.480, and 1.255 for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively) and WMH count (beta = 0.129, 0.107, and 0.419). The ODI regression models showed similar associations for WMH volume (beta = 0.426, 1.030, and 1.130) and WMH count (beta = 0.141, 0.315, and 0.538).

Dr. Carvalho and Dr. McCarter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Individuals diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have higher volumes of white-matter hyperintensities (WMHs), according to a new analysis of data from the SHIP-Trend-0 cohort in Western Pomerania, Germany, which is part of the Study of Health In Pomerania. The association was true for individual measures of OSA, including apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and oxygen desaturation index (ODI).

WMHs are often seen on MRI in older people and in patients with stroke or dementia, and they may be an indicator of cerebral small-vessel disease. They are linked to greater risk of abnormal gait, worsening balance, depression, cognitive decline, dementia, stroke, and death. Suggested mechanisms for harms from WMHs include ischemia, hypoxia, hypoperfusion, inflammation, and demyelination.

WMHs have been linked to vascular risk factors like smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. Brain pathology studies have found loss of myelin, axonal loss, and scarring close to WMHs.

Although a few studies have looked for associations between WMHs and OSA, they have yielded inconsistent results. The new work employed highly standardized data collection and more complete covariate adjustment. The results, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest a novel, and potentially treatable, pathological WMH mechanism, according to the authors.

“This is an important study. It has strong methodology. The automated analysis of WMH in a large population-based cohort helps to eliminate several biases that can occur in this type of assessment. The data analysis was massive, with adequate control of all potential confounders and testing for interactions. This generated robust results,” said Diego Z. Carvalho, MD, who was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Carvalho is an assistant professor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
 

Worse apnea, worse hyperintensity

“The association varies according to the degree of apnea severity, so mild OSA is probably not associated with increased WMH, while severe OSA is mostly likely driving most of the associations,” said Dr. Carvalho.

If a causal mechanism were to be proven, it would “bring a stronger call for treatment of severe OSA patients, particularly those with increased risk for small-vessel disease, [such as] patients with metabolic syndrome. Likewise, patients with severe OSA would be the best candidates for therapeutic trials with [continuous positive airway pressure] with or without possible adjunctive neuroprotective treatment for halting or slowing down WMH progression,” said Dr. Carvalho.

Stuart McCarter, MD, who is an instructor of neurology at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., also found the results interesting but pointed out that much more work needs to be done. “While they found a relationship between OSA as well as OSA severity and WMH despite adjusting for other known confounders, it is unlikely that it is as simple as OSA is the main causal factor for WMH, given the complex relationship between OSA, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome. However, this data does highlight the importance of considering OSA in addition to other more traditional risk factors when considering modifiable risk factors for brain aging,” said Dr. McCarter. The study cohort was mostly of White European ancestry, so more work also needs to be done in other racial groups.

The study underlines the importance of screening among individuals with cognitive impairment. “If OSA represents a modifiable risk factor for WMH and associated cognitive decline, then it would represent one of the few potentially treatable etiologies, or at least contributors of cognitive impairment,” said Dr. McCarter.

The SHIP-Trend-0 cohort is drawn from adults in Western Pomerania. The researchers analyzed data from 529 patients who had WMH and for whom intracranial volume data were available. Each member of the cohort also underwent polysomnography.

Based on AHI criteria, 24% of the overall sample had mild OSA, 10% had moderate OSA, and 6% had severe OSA.

After adjustment for sex, age, intracranial volume, and body weight, WMH volume was associated with AHI (beta = 0.024; P < .001) and ODI (beta = 0.033; P < .001). WMH counts were also associated with AHI (beta = 0.008; P = .01) and ODI (beta = 0.011; P = .02).

The effect size increased with greater OSA severity, as measured by AHI for both WMH volume (beta = 0.312, 0.480, and 1.255 for mild, moderate, and severe OSA, respectively) and WMH count (beta = 0.129, 0.107, and 0.419). The ODI regression models showed similar associations for WMH volume (beta = 0.426, 1.030, and 1.130) and WMH count (beta = 0.141, 0.315, and 0.538).

Dr. Carvalho and Dr. McCarter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleep apnea and other types of sleep disorders appear to elevate the risk for some types of cancer, specifically prostate cancer, more so than others. But the overall risk can be highly variable, and some sleep problems were found to be associated with a lower risk for cancer and cancer-related death, an analysis of a large observational cohort study of cardiovascular patients found.

Results of the analysis were published online in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators analyzed the presence of sleep apnea and insomnia and cancer risk in more than 8,500 patients in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). “The fact that we observed certain sleep problems, like apneas, to be associated with elevated risk of some cancers but not others reflects the fact that cancer is a heterogeneous disease,” senior author Amanda Phipps, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Phipps is an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, both in Seattle.
 

Variable cancer links

The researchers assessed sleep problems in two groups in the CHS: an incident cancer group of 3,930 patients and a cancer mortality group of 4,580 patients. Within those respective groups, the investigators identified 885 first-incident cancers and 804 cancer deaths with a median follow-up of 12 and 14 years. The average age of the study population was 73 years, and 57% were women.

Sleep apnea symptoms (SAS) were associated with a lower risk for incident cancers – a 16% lower baseline risk and a 24% lower time-dependent risk. The study showed no association between cancer incidence and daytime sleepiness and apneas.

However, there was a significantly elevated risk relationship between sleep problems and prostate cancer. A time-dependent analysis of apnea showed more than double the risk (hazard ratio, 2.34), and baseline snoring carried a 69% greater risk. There was also a dose-response relationship for baseline cumulative SAS, compared with not having symptoms: an HR of 1.30 for one symptom, and 2.22 for two or more symptoms.

Risks for lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers were also associated with baseline daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.81), but not with insomnia (HR, 0.54).

With regard to cancer mortality, the study found no relationship between sleep problems and cancer death. In fact, it found an overall inverse relationship with snoring (time-dependent HR, 0.73; cumulative average HR, 0.67) and baseline apnea (HR, 0.69). Likewise, patients reporting SAS had lower risks than those having no SAS: an HR of 0.90 for one symptom and 0.75 for multiple symptoms. No relationships were found between any insomnia symptom and cancer death.

“We know the pathways that lead to prostate cancer can be very different than the pathways that lead to colorectal cancer,” Dr. Phipps said. “What we don’t yet understand is why these associations differ or what mechanisms are responsible for these cancer site-specific associations.”
 

Need for sleep assessment

The findings don’t change much for how clinicians should evaluate cancer risks in patients with sleep problems, Dr. Phipps said. “Other studies have clearly demonstrated the implications that sleep apnea has for a variety of other important health conditions – such as cardiovascular disease – so there are already plenty of good reasons for clinicians to ask their patients about their sleep and to connect patients with resources for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep apnea,” she added. “This study provides another possible reason.”

These findings provide context for future studies of the relationship between sleep problems and cancer. “But, given that sleep is something we all do and given that sleep problems are so pervasive, it’s important that we keep trying to better understand this relationship,” Dr. Phipps said.

“My hope is that future cancer studies will build in more detailed, longitudinal information on sleep patterns to help us fill current gaps in knowledge.”

Dr. Phipps has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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