Ob.Gyn. News

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced two new patients now have the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), bringing the case total in the United States to 15.

The 14th case was discovered in California among a group of people under federal quarantine after returning from the Hubei Province in China. That patient was on a U.S. State Department–chartered flight that arrived in the United States on Feb. 7.

The 15th case was discovered in Texas among a group of people who also are under federal quarantine. That patient arrived on a State Department–chartered flight that arrived on Feb. 7. It is the first person in Texas that has tested positive for 2019-nCoV.

CDC said in a statement announcing the Texas case that there “will likely be additional cases in the coming days and weeks, including among other people recently returned from Wuhan.” Officials noted that more than 600 people who have returned as part of State Department–chartered flights are currently under that 14-day quarantine.

The agency is preparing for more widespread cases of 2019-nCoV.

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that containment has been the early focus for the agency.

“The goal of the measures we have taken to date are to slow the introduction and impact of this disease in the United States, but at some point, we are likely to see community spread in the U.S.,” Dr. Messonnier said during a Feb. 12 teleconference with reporters. She added that the federal response will change over time as the virus spreads.

Dr. Messonnier noted that public health officials are planning for the increased demands that a wider outbreak of 2019-nCov would place on the health care delivery system, including ensuring an adequate supply of medical equipment.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).

“Transfers were more likely to be necessary when infants were born in hospitals with lower levels of neonatal care,” Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”

The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.

“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.

This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.

Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).

“Transfers were more likely to be necessary when infants were born in hospitals with lower levels of neonatal care,” Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”

The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.

“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.

This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.

Neonatal transfer was the factor most often associated with unexpected, severe complications at birth, particularly at hospitals that had the highest rates of complications, according to a cross-sectional study published online in JAMA Network Open (2020;3[2]:e1919498).

“Transfers were more likely to be necessary when infants were born in hospitals with lower levels of neonatal care,” Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, if this metric is to be used in its current form, it would appear that accreditors, regulatory bodies, and payers should consider adjusting for or stratifying by a hospital’s level of neonatal care to avoid disincentivizing against appropriate transfers.”

The Joint Commission recently included unexpected complications in term newborns as a marker of quality of obstetric care, but it does not currently recommend any risk adjustment for the metric. The authors aimed to learn which factors regarding patients and hospitals were associated with such complications. Severe, unexpected newborn complications include death, seizure, use of assisted ventilation for at least 6 hours, transfer to another facility, or a 5-minute Apgar score of 3 or less.

“This measure has been proposed to serve as a balancing measure to maternal metrics, such as the rate of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex-presenting cesarean deliveries,” the authors explained.

This study was supported by a Health Policy Award from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

This story first appeared on Medscape.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.

In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.

But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.

For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.

The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.

Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.

The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82). 

Budget ‘would thwart’ progress

A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.

“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.

David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.

“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.

Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.

In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.

Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.

‘Untenable cuts’

AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”

This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.

“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.

The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.

“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”

Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.

“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.

In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.

“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.

He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.

Medical malpractice overhaul

The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.

The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.

These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.

Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.

Site-neutral policy

A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.

In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”

Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.

“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.

HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.

The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year. 

Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.

Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the number of confirmed cases of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in the United States has reached 13.

Gregory Twachtman/MDedge News

The latest case, announced Feb. 11, 2020, by the CDC, was in a person in California who was previously under federal quarantine because the patient had traveled to Wuhan, China.

The CDC is currently looking into who the patient may have come in contact with to understand the potential for further spread of the coronavirus.

“The contact investigation is ongoing,” CDC principal deputy director Anne Schuchat, MD, said during a Feb. 11 press conference to provide an update on coronavirus containment activities being taken by the CDC.

Dr. Schuchat also addressed issues related to the laboratory test, as the patient in California was initially thought to be negative for the coronavirus.

“With other cases around the country that we are evaluating, we have been doing serial tests to understand whether they are still infectious” and to gather other information about how results change over time, Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted that the CDC does not “have as much information as we would like on the severity of the virus,” noting that there are many cases in China with severe reactions, while the 13 cases in the United States represent a much more mild reaction to the virus so far.

With the latest case in California, she noted that there was “probably a mix-up and the original test wasn’t negative,” although she did not elaborate on what the nature of the mix-up was, stating that was all the information that she had.

In general, Dr. Schuchat touted the actions taken by the CDC and the federal government focused primarily on containing the spread of the virus in the United States, including the implementation of travel advisories, quarantining passengers returning from China, as well as the new test kits that are being distributed by the agency across the nation and around the world. She also mentioned CDC staff are being deployed around the world to monitor the spreading of the disease and highlighted the outreach efforts to keep the public informed.

Dr. Schuchat highlighted the fact that, of the 13 cases in the United States, 11 were with patients that were in Wuhan, and only 2 were because of close contact with a patient, something that she attributed to the actions being taken.

She also noted that cases in the United States have not been as severe as they have been in China, where deaths have been attributed to the coronavirus outbreak. She added that there have been only two deaths outside of mainland China attributed to the coronavirus.

“Some of the steps the CDC has taken have really put us in better shape should widespread transmission occur in the United States,” she said.

Dr. Schuchat also highlighted that the first charter flight of people quarantined after returning from Wuhan have reached the 14-day milestone and should be on their way home beginning today.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

It is too early yet to explicitly determine the effects of the Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) on pregnant women and their fetuses. This is a critical concern, because members of the coronavirus family, which have been responsible for previous outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV), have demonstrated their ability to cause severe complications during pregnancy, according to researchers.

The SARS virus outbreak and the more recent MERS virus outbreak provide the best available models with which to examine the potential impact of 2019-nCoV on pregnancy, according to a letter published online in the Lancet.

Twelve pregnant women were infected with SARS-CoV during the 2002-2003 pandemic. Three (25%) of these women died during pregnancy. Overall, four of seven women had a miscarriage in the first trimester. In the second or third trimester, two out of five women had fetal growth restriction, and four of the five had preterm birth (one case was spontaneous and three were induced because of the maternal condition), according to corresponding author David Baud, MD, PhD, of the maternal-fetal and obstetrics research unit at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, and colleagues.

A review of 11 pregnant women infected with the virus showed that 10 women (91%) presented with adverse outcomes. Six (55%) neonates were admitted to the ICU; three (27%) died. Two neonates were delivered prematurely because their mothers developed severe respiratory failure.

Because 2019-nCov has a potential for similar behavior, “we recommend systematic screening of any suspected 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy. If 2019-nCoV infection during pregnancy is confirmed, extended follow-up should be recommended for mothers and their fetuses,” concluded Dr. Baud and colleagues.

Dr. Baud and associates are known for their previous research on the impacts of the Zika virus on pregnancy. They reported having no competing interests.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Baud D et al. Lancet. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30311-1.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

CHICAGO – An abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for screening individuals at high risk for breast cancer performed as well as a standard protocol, in about half the time and with greater patient satisfaction.

The abbreviated protocol also resulted in fewer false positive findings, with 5% fewer patients receiving biopsies for benign lesions than with a standard protocol (8.4% versus 13.7%, P less than .001).

Findings from the prospective 10-month trial conducted in the province of Ontario were presented by Jean Seely, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Ottawa, at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

“The abbreviated protocol was shown to be as effective as the standard protocol in high-risk screening breast MRI, supporting previous studies,” said Dr. Seely. The shorter protocol took 16.3 minutes on average, compared with 27 minutes for the standard MRI protocol. This difference resulted in a 50% increase in institutional capacity, or a jump from two to three patients screened per hour.

In the province of Ontario, said Dr. Seely, women assessed at being at a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer receive MRIs as part of the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), which calculates risk by using the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model.

For high-risk patients, the OBSP model provides annual mammography and an MRI for women between the ages of 30 and 60 years. Not only is the half-hour duration of the standard protocol resource-intensive, especially in regions with limited scanner availability, but patients may either be reluctant to undergo a half-hour scan, or not tolerate a lengthy scan very well.

Dr. Seely cited previous work (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32[22]:2304-10) showing that an abbreviated MRI protocol has similar accuracy as the full standard protocol. With the foundation of evidence from this study, Dr. Seely and her collaborators compared outcomes for high-risk patients who were screened with an abbreviated versus a standard protocol.

The abbreviated protocol, approved by the American College of Radiology, omits a final round of image acquisition sequences at the 9-minute mark after gadolinium administration, instead performing acquisition at 1, 2, 3, and 4 minutes after contrast delivery. Total time required for this protocol is just over 13 minutes, said Dr. Seely, and additional diagnostic MRIs were not required.

The trial was constructed so that the abbreviated protocol was used for the entire OBSP cohort for 10 months in 2018. Results were compared with those from the 12 previous months, when OBSP patients’ MRIs were performed using the standard protocol.

A total of 881 patients received standard-protocol MRIs; about three quarters (651) of those patients had previous MRI screening, while the remaining 230 patients had a baseline screen via the standard protocol.

Of the 658 patients in the abbreviated protocol group, 135, or about 20%, received the briefer scans as a baseline screen; the remast of the patients in this arm had received earlier MRI screening.

In addition to tracking scanning times, Dr. Seely and her collaborators also compared cancer detection rates, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment categories, positive predictive values, and the abnormal interpretation rate – that is, how many scans fell into BI-RADS categories 0, 4, and 5.

No significant difference was found between the rates of BI-RADs 0, 3, or 5 studies between the groups. Significantly fewer abbreviated scans fell into the BI-RADS 4 category, however (9.3% vs. 14.9%; P less than .001).

Similarly, the abnormal interpretation rate was 12.5% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 17.5% for the standard protocol (P less than .007), with a correspondingly lower biopsy rate of 8.4% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 13.7% for the standard protocol (P less than .001). The overall cancer detection rate did not differ between groups.

The net effect of the abbreviated protocol, said Dr. Seely, was an increase in positive predictive value without a drop in cancer detection rates. She and her colleagues will continue to track outcomes for those receiving abbreviated screening within the province of Ontario to track performance over time.

Dr. Seely reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. She reported no funding source beyond the province of Ontario.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Seely J et al. RSNA 2019, Session RC-215-04.