Commentary

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

 

I recently was contacted by my nurse to schedule follow-up for a patient of mine whose routine labs sent by his cardiologist showed a blood glucose of 48 and a potassium of 5.8. He did not have diabetes, was not on any medications that could cause hyperkalemia, and most importantly he was asymptomatic when the labs were drawn.

If you are looking for zebras you might consider adrenal insufficiency, which could cause both hyperkalemia and hypoglycemia, but this would make no sense in someone asymptomatic.

This pattern is one I have seen commonly when I am on call, and I am contacted about abnormal labs. The lab reported no hemolysis seen, but this is the typical pattern seen with hemolytic specimens and/or specimens that have been held a long time before they are analyzed.

Lippi and colleagues reported on the clinically significant increase in potassium in samples that visually appeared not to be hemolyzed.¹ Hemolyzed specimens can also drop glucose values, but not as profoundly as raising potassium values. When left unprocessed, glycolysis occurs in the white blood cells of a blood sample and may consume 5%-7% of the sample’s glucose content per hour.²

Khaled and colleagues looked at the drop in glucose levels in samples over time based on what anticoagulants were used.³ They found that, at 3 hours, glucose measurements were decreased by 28.4 mg/dL when sodium citrate is used, 58 mg/dL when EDTA was used, 15.4 mg/dL when fluoride oxalate was used, and 60.2 mg/dL when no anticoagulant is used.

Low blood sugars caused by elevated WBCs in blood samples has been well described.⁴ It has been described with moderate and very high WBC counts, as well as with the leukocytosis seen with polycythemia vera.⁵ The term “leukocyte larceny” has been used to describe high WBC counts that can not only utilize glucose, but also oxygen.

Saccheti and colleagues described a patient with a WBC greater than 500,000 who had repeatedly low oxygen levels on blood gases, that did not correlate with the normal oxygen saturations measured by pulse oximetry.⁶ This same issue has been seen in patients with extreme thrombocytosis.⁷Pearl: When labs don’t make sense clinically, always look at the possibility that there may be a problem in the tube and not in the person. Especially think of this when blood samples may have been held for a long time before they are run, such as with visiting nurse visits and blood draws at shelters and nursing homes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lippi G et al. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(3):311-6.

2. Mikesh LM and Bruns DE. Clin Chem. 2008 May;54(5):930-2.

3. Khaled S et al. Al-Mukhtar Journal of Sciences. 2018;33(2):100-6.

4. Goodenow TJ and Malarkey WB. JAMA. 1977;237(18):1961-2.

5. R Arem et al. Arch Intern Med. 1982 Nov;142(12):2199-201.

6. Sacchetti A et al. J Emerg Med. 1990;8:567–569.

7. A Mehta et al. Eur Respir J. 2008 Feb;31(2):469-72.

 

I recently was contacted by my nurse to schedule follow-up for a patient of mine whose routine labs sent by his cardiologist showed a blood glucose of 48 and a potassium of 5.8. He did not have diabetes, was not on any medications that could cause hyperkalemia, and most importantly he was asymptomatic when the labs were drawn.

If you are looking for zebras you might consider adrenal insufficiency, which could cause both hyperkalemia and hypoglycemia, but this would make no sense in someone asymptomatic.

This pattern is one I have seen commonly when I am on call, and I am contacted about abnormal labs. The lab reported no hemolysis seen, but this is the typical pattern seen with hemolytic specimens and/or specimens that have been held a long time before they are analyzed.

Lippi and colleagues reported on the clinically significant increase in potassium in samples that visually appeared not to be hemolyzed.¹ Hemolyzed specimens can also drop glucose values, but not as profoundly as raising potassium values. When left unprocessed, glycolysis occurs in the white blood cells of a blood sample and may consume 5%-7% of the sample’s glucose content per hour.²

Khaled and colleagues looked at the drop in glucose levels in samples over time based on what anticoagulants were used.³ They found that, at 3 hours, glucose measurements were decreased by 28.4 mg/dL when sodium citrate is used, 58 mg/dL when EDTA was used, 15.4 mg/dL when fluoride oxalate was used, and 60.2 mg/dL when no anticoagulant is used.

Low blood sugars caused by elevated WBCs in blood samples has been well described.⁴ It has been described with moderate and very high WBC counts, as well as with the leukocytosis seen with polycythemia vera.⁵ The term “leukocyte larceny” has been used to describe high WBC counts that can not only utilize glucose, but also oxygen.

Saccheti and colleagues described a patient with a WBC greater than 500,000 who had repeatedly low oxygen levels on blood gases, that did not correlate with the normal oxygen saturations measured by pulse oximetry.⁶ This same issue has been seen in patients with extreme thrombocytosis.⁷Pearl: When labs don’t make sense clinically, always look at the possibility that there may be a problem in the tube and not in the person. Especially think of this when blood samples may have been held for a long time before they are run, such as with visiting nurse visits and blood draws at shelters and nursing homes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lippi G et al. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(3):311-6.

2. Mikesh LM and Bruns DE. Clin Chem. 2008 May;54(5):930-2.

3. Khaled S et al. Al-Mukhtar Journal of Sciences. 2018;33(2):100-6.

4. Goodenow TJ and Malarkey WB. JAMA. 1977;237(18):1961-2.

5. R Arem et al. Arch Intern Med. 1982 Nov;142(12):2199-201.

6. Sacchetti A et al. J Emerg Med. 1990;8:567–569.

7. A Mehta et al. Eur Respir J. 2008 Feb;31(2):469-72.

 

I recently was contacted by my nurse to schedule follow-up for a patient of mine whose routine labs sent by his cardiologist showed a blood glucose of 48 and a potassium of 5.8. He did not have diabetes, was not on any medications that could cause hyperkalemia, and most importantly he was asymptomatic when the labs were drawn.

If you are looking for zebras you might consider adrenal insufficiency, which could cause both hyperkalemia and hypoglycemia, but this would make no sense in someone asymptomatic.

This pattern is one I have seen commonly when I am on call, and I am contacted about abnormal labs. The lab reported no hemolysis seen, but this is the typical pattern seen with hemolytic specimens and/or specimens that have been held a long time before they are analyzed.

Lippi and colleagues reported on the clinically significant increase in potassium in samples that visually appeared not to be hemolyzed.¹ Hemolyzed specimens can also drop glucose values, but not as profoundly as raising potassium values. When left unprocessed, glycolysis occurs in the white blood cells of a blood sample and may consume 5%-7% of the sample’s glucose content per hour.²

Khaled and colleagues looked at the drop in glucose levels in samples over time based on what anticoagulants were used.³ They found that, at 3 hours, glucose measurements were decreased by 28.4 mg/dL when sodium citrate is used, 58 mg/dL when EDTA was used, 15.4 mg/dL when fluoride oxalate was used, and 60.2 mg/dL when no anticoagulant is used.

Low blood sugars caused by elevated WBCs in blood samples has been well described.⁴ It has been described with moderate and very high WBC counts, as well as with the leukocytosis seen with polycythemia vera.⁵ The term “leukocyte larceny” has been used to describe high WBC counts that can not only utilize glucose, but also oxygen.

Saccheti and colleagues described a patient with a WBC greater than 500,000 who had repeatedly low oxygen levels on blood gases, that did not correlate with the normal oxygen saturations measured by pulse oximetry.⁶ This same issue has been seen in patients with extreme thrombocytosis.⁷Pearl: When labs don’t make sense clinically, always look at the possibility that there may be a problem in the tube and not in the person. Especially think of this when blood samples may have been held for a long time before they are run, such as with visiting nurse visits and blood draws at shelters and nursing homes.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lippi G et al. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(3):311-6.

2. Mikesh LM and Bruns DE. Clin Chem. 2008 May;54(5):930-2.

3. Khaled S et al. Al-Mukhtar Journal of Sciences. 2018;33(2):100-6.

4. Goodenow TJ and Malarkey WB. JAMA. 1977;237(18):1961-2.

5. R Arem et al. Arch Intern Med. 1982 Nov;142(12):2199-201.

6. Sacchetti A et al. J Emerg Med. 1990;8:567–569.

7. A Mehta et al. Eur Respir J. 2008 Feb;31(2):469-72.

Since March 2020, my colleagues and I have conducted Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital. It has been an opportunity to review the basic tenets of care for reproductive age women before, during, and after pregnancy, and also to learn of extraordinary cases being managed both in the outpatient setting and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As I’ve noted in previous columns, we have seen a heightening of symptoms of anxiety and insomnia during the pandemic in women who visit our center, and at the centers of the more than 100 clinicians who join Virtual Rounds each week. These colleagues represent people in rural areas, urban environments, and underserved communities across America that have been severely affected by the pandemic. It is clear that the stress of the pandemic is undeniable for patients both with and without psychiatric or mental health issues. We have also seen clinical roughening in women who have been well for a long period of time. In particular, we have noticed that postpartum women are struggling with the stressors of the postpartum period, such as figuring out the logistics of support with respect to childcare, managing maternity leave, and adapting to shifting of anticipated support systems.

Hundreds of women with bipolar disorder come to see us each year about the reproductive safety of the medicines on which they are maintained. Those patients are typically well, and we collaborate with them and their doctors about the safest treatment recommendations. With that said, women with bipolar disorder are at particular risk for postpartum worsening of their mood. The management of their medications during pregnancy requires extremely careful attention because relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of postpartum worsening of underlying psychiatric illness.

This is an opportunity to briefly review the reproductive safety of treatments for these women. We know through initiatives such as the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications that the most widely used medicines for bipolar women during pregnancy include lamotrigine, atypical antipsychotics, and lithium carbonate.
 

Lamotrigine

The last 15 years have generated the most consistent data on the reproductive safety of lamotrigine. One of the issues, however, with respect to lamotrigine is that its use requires very careful and slow titration and it is also more effective in patients who are well and in the maintenance phase of the illness versus those who are more acutely manic or who are suffering from frank bipolar depression.

Critically, the literature does not support the use of lamotrigine for patients with bipolar I or with more manic symptoms. That being said, it remains a mainstay of treatment for many patients with bipolar disorder, is easy to use across pregnancy, and has an attractive side-effect profile and a very strong reproductive safety profile, suggesting the absence of an increased risk for major malformations.
 

 

Atypical antipsychotics

We have less information but have a growing body of evidence about atypical antipsychotics. Both data from administrative databases as well a growing literature from pregnancy registries, such as the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, fail to show a signal for teratogenicity with respect to use of the medicines as a class, and also with specific reference to some of the most widely used atypical antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine and aripiprazole. Our comfort level, compared with a decade ago, with using the second-generation antipsychotics is much greater. That’s a good thing considering the extent to which patients presenting on a combination of, for example, lamotrigine and atypical antipsychotics.

Lithium carbonate

Another mainstay of treatment for women with bipolar I disorder and prominent symptoms of mania is lithium carbonate. The data for efficacy of lithium carbonate used both acutely and for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder has been unequivocal. Concerns about the teratogenicity of lithium go back to the 1970s and indicate a small increased absolute and relative risk for cardiovascular malformations. More recently, a meta-analysis of lithium exposure during pregnancy and the postpartum period supports this older data, which suggests this increased risk, and examines other outcomes concerning to women with bipolar disorder who use lithium, such as preterm labor, low birth weight, miscarriage, and other adverse neonatal outcomes.

In 2021, with the backdrop of the pandemic, what we actually see is that, for our pregnant and postpartum patients with bipolar disorder, the imperative to keep them well, keep them out of the hospital, and keep them safe has often required careful coadministration of drugs like lamotrigine, lithium, and atypical antipsychotics (and even benzodiazepines). Keeping this population well during the perinatal period is so critical. We were all trained to use the least number of medications when possible across psychiatric illnesses. But the years, data, and clinical experience have shown that polypharmacy may be required to sustain euthymia in many patients with bipolar disorder. The reflex historically has been to stop medications during pregnancy. We take pause, particularly during the pandemic, before reverting back to the practice of 25 years ago of abruptly stopping medicines such as lithium or atypical antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder because we know that the risk for relapse is very high following a shift from the regimen that got the patient well.

The COVID-19 pandemic in many respects has highlighted a need to clinically thread the needle with respect to developing a regimen that minimizes risk of reproductive safety concerns but maximizes the likelihood that we can sustain the emotional well-being of these women across pregnancy and into the postpartum period.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since March 2020, my colleagues and I have conducted Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital. It has been an opportunity to review the basic tenets of care for reproductive age women before, during, and after pregnancy, and also to learn of extraordinary cases being managed both in the outpatient setting and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As I’ve noted in previous columns, we have seen a heightening of symptoms of anxiety and insomnia during the pandemic in women who visit our center, and at the centers of the more than 100 clinicians who join Virtual Rounds each week. These colleagues represent people in rural areas, urban environments, and underserved communities across America that have been severely affected by the pandemic. It is clear that the stress of the pandemic is undeniable for patients both with and without psychiatric or mental health issues. We have also seen clinical roughening in women who have been well for a long period of time. In particular, we have noticed that postpartum women are struggling with the stressors of the postpartum period, such as figuring out the logistics of support with respect to childcare, managing maternity leave, and adapting to shifting of anticipated support systems.

Hundreds of women with bipolar disorder come to see us each year about the reproductive safety of the medicines on which they are maintained. Those patients are typically well, and we collaborate with them and their doctors about the safest treatment recommendations. With that said, women with bipolar disorder are at particular risk for postpartum worsening of their mood. The management of their medications during pregnancy requires extremely careful attention because relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of postpartum worsening of underlying psychiatric illness.

This is an opportunity to briefly review the reproductive safety of treatments for these women. We know through initiatives such as the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications that the most widely used medicines for bipolar women during pregnancy include lamotrigine, atypical antipsychotics, and lithium carbonate.
 

Lamotrigine

The last 15 years have generated the most consistent data on the reproductive safety of lamotrigine. One of the issues, however, with respect to lamotrigine is that its use requires very careful and slow titration and it is also more effective in patients who are well and in the maintenance phase of the illness versus those who are more acutely manic or who are suffering from frank bipolar depression.

Critically, the literature does not support the use of lamotrigine for patients with bipolar I or with more manic symptoms. That being said, it remains a mainstay of treatment for many patients with bipolar disorder, is easy to use across pregnancy, and has an attractive side-effect profile and a very strong reproductive safety profile, suggesting the absence of an increased risk for major malformations.
 

 

Atypical antipsychotics

We have less information but have a growing body of evidence about atypical antipsychotics. Both data from administrative databases as well a growing literature from pregnancy registries, such as the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, fail to show a signal for teratogenicity with respect to use of the medicines as a class, and also with specific reference to some of the most widely used atypical antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine and aripiprazole. Our comfort level, compared with a decade ago, with using the second-generation antipsychotics is much greater. That’s a good thing considering the extent to which patients presenting on a combination of, for example, lamotrigine and atypical antipsychotics.

Lithium carbonate

Another mainstay of treatment for women with bipolar I disorder and prominent symptoms of mania is lithium carbonate. The data for efficacy of lithium carbonate used both acutely and for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder has been unequivocal. Concerns about the teratogenicity of lithium go back to the 1970s and indicate a small increased absolute and relative risk for cardiovascular malformations. More recently, a meta-analysis of lithium exposure during pregnancy and the postpartum period supports this older data, which suggests this increased risk, and examines other outcomes concerning to women with bipolar disorder who use lithium, such as preterm labor, low birth weight, miscarriage, and other adverse neonatal outcomes.

In 2021, with the backdrop of the pandemic, what we actually see is that, for our pregnant and postpartum patients with bipolar disorder, the imperative to keep them well, keep them out of the hospital, and keep them safe has often required careful coadministration of drugs like lamotrigine, lithium, and atypical antipsychotics (and even benzodiazepines). Keeping this population well during the perinatal period is so critical. We were all trained to use the least number of medications when possible across psychiatric illnesses. But the years, data, and clinical experience have shown that polypharmacy may be required to sustain euthymia in many patients with bipolar disorder. The reflex historically has been to stop medications during pregnancy. We take pause, particularly during the pandemic, before reverting back to the practice of 25 years ago of abruptly stopping medicines such as lithium or atypical antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder because we know that the risk for relapse is very high following a shift from the regimen that got the patient well.

The COVID-19 pandemic in many respects has highlighted a need to clinically thread the needle with respect to developing a regimen that minimizes risk of reproductive safety concerns but maximizes the likelihood that we can sustain the emotional well-being of these women across pregnancy and into the postpartum period.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since March 2020, my colleagues and I have conducted Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital. It has been an opportunity to review the basic tenets of care for reproductive age women before, during, and after pregnancy, and also to learn of extraordinary cases being managed both in the outpatient setting and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As I’ve noted in previous columns, we have seen a heightening of symptoms of anxiety and insomnia during the pandemic in women who visit our center, and at the centers of the more than 100 clinicians who join Virtual Rounds each week. These colleagues represent people in rural areas, urban environments, and underserved communities across America that have been severely affected by the pandemic. It is clear that the stress of the pandemic is undeniable for patients both with and without psychiatric or mental health issues. We have also seen clinical roughening in women who have been well for a long period of time. In particular, we have noticed that postpartum women are struggling with the stressors of the postpartum period, such as figuring out the logistics of support with respect to childcare, managing maternity leave, and adapting to shifting of anticipated support systems.

Hundreds of women with bipolar disorder come to see us each year about the reproductive safety of the medicines on which they are maintained. Those patients are typically well, and we collaborate with them and their doctors about the safest treatment recommendations. With that said, women with bipolar disorder are at particular risk for postpartum worsening of their mood. The management of their medications during pregnancy requires extremely careful attention because relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of postpartum worsening of underlying psychiatric illness.

This is an opportunity to briefly review the reproductive safety of treatments for these women. We know through initiatives such as the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications that the most widely used medicines for bipolar women during pregnancy include lamotrigine, atypical antipsychotics, and lithium carbonate.
 

Lamotrigine

The last 15 years have generated the most consistent data on the reproductive safety of lamotrigine. One of the issues, however, with respect to lamotrigine is that its use requires very careful and slow titration and it is also more effective in patients who are well and in the maintenance phase of the illness versus those who are more acutely manic or who are suffering from frank bipolar depression.

Critically, the literature does not support the use of lamotrigine for patients with bipolar I or with more manic symptoms. That being said, it remains a mainstay of treatment for many patients with bipolar disorder, is easy to use across pregnancy, and has an attractive side-effect profile and a very strong reproductive safety profile, suggesting the absence of an increased risk for major malformations.
 

 

Atypical antipsychotics

We have less information but have a growing body of evidence about atypical antipsychotics. Both data from administrative databases as well a growing literature from pregnancy registries, such as the National Pregnancy Registry for Atypical Antipsychotics, fail to show a signal for teratogenicity with respect to use of the medicines as a class, and also with specific reference to some of the most widely used atypical antipsychotics, particularly quetiapine and aripiprazole. Our comfort level, compared with a decade ago, with using the second-generation antipsychotics is much greater. That’s a good thing considering the extent to which patients presenting on a combination of, for example, lamotrigine and atypical antipsychotics.

Lithium carbonate

Another mainstay of treatment for women with bipolar I disorder and prominent symptoms of mania is lithium carbonate. The data for efficacy of lithium carbonate used both acutely and for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder has been unequivocal. Concerns about the teratogenicity of lithium go back to the 1970s and indicate a small increased absolute and relative risk for cardiovascular malformations. More recently, a meta-analysis of lithium exposure during pregnancy and the postpartum period supports this older data, which suggests this increased risk, and examines other outcomes concerning to women with bipolar disorder who use lithium, such as preterm labor, low birth weight, miscarriage, and other adverse neonatal outcomes.

In 2021, with the backdrop of the pandemic, what we actually see is that, for our pregnant and postpartum patients with bipolar disorder, the imperative to keep them well, keep them out of the hospital, and keep them safe has often required careful coadministration of drugs like lamotrigine, lithium, and atypical antipsychotics (and even benzodiazepines). Keeping this population well during the perinatal period is so critical. We were all trained to use the least number of medications when possible across psychiatric illnesses. But the years, data, and clinical experience have shown that polypharmacy may be required to sustain euthymia in many patients with bipolar disorder. The reflex historically has been to stop medications during pregnancy. We take pause, particularly during the pandemic, before reverting back to the practice of 25 years ago of abruptly stopping medicines such as lithium or atypical antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder because we know that the risk for relapse is very high following a shift from the regimen that got the patient well.

The COVID-19 pandemic in many respects has highlighted a need to clinically thread the needle with respect to developing a regimen that minimizes risk of reproductive safety concerns but maximizes the likelihood that we can sustain the emotional well-being of these women across pregnancy and into the postpartum period.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

 

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

 

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

 

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

 

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

 

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

 

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

 

Editor’s Note: With 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror, we decided to check in with the Editorial Advisory Board members of Clinical Psychiatry News about the impact it has had on their practices and lives.

Redefining how to engage

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a wave of mental health problems in our population, such as general stress, addiction, weight gain, depression, and social isolation, and these symptoms are exacerbated in mental health patients who are already struggling to cope with personal issues.

When the pandemic lockdown was announced in March 2020, many of my patients became overwhelmed and panicked at the idea of not being able to come to my office for in-person therapy. As an alternative, I started phone call sessions with my clients. These calls forced me to listen extra carefully to patient voice intonations to ascertain their true feelings, since I was unable to view the clients.

Soon thereafter, I transitioned to telemedicine over the Internet, and this visual helped me assess each patient. In addition, my patients became accustomed to telemedicine and embraced it once they saw me and were able to interact with me on the screen.

Although the pandemic disrupted my medical practice, it has redefined the way I can do therapy, as I can practice medicine from a distance. Telemedicine is time efficient for both my patients and me and it provides extreme social distancing, eliminating COVID-19 exposure between doctor and patient.

The pandemic has forced me to be adaptable and to recognize that, if you are open to changing habits, you can find a solution to any situation, including a pandemic.

Richard W. Cohen, MD
Private Practice
Philadelphia

Adjusting to fate

As it became clear in January 2020 that a pandemic was upon us, I made plans and prepared. I needed to remain healthy for my patients and my 102-year-old best friend, Doc.

I purchased PPE and 6 months’ of nonperishable groceries and toilet tissue from a commercial vendor. I made certain that Doc’s caregivers had what they needed to care for him and their families and preached to them, family, patients, and friends the public health guidelines of the day. Also, I needed to remain healthy for my patients who live in a dementia care facility, and I joined other workers there in being careful and proud that our facility remained COVID free.

By March 2020, I left my office, because it was in a building where both residents and staff were becoming ill with COVID. I started audio and video telemedicine as well as standing outside the windows of patients who only read lips and do not use digital technology. Under these new circumstances, patients (and Doc) revealed things about themselves that had remained hidden for decades. There was a sense of urgency and uncertainty.

I also started weekly COVID testing, at first at CVS and then in a public park. Doc, who had had congestive heart failure for 2 years, had celebrated his 103rd birthday in February, and continued to be a source of encouragement and support. We weathered through the spring and summer with him on lockdown in his senior residence. The dementia care facility remained free of COVID.

My plan had been to return to my office in July, however, the facility manager determined that they were not ready to receive my outpatients. I took on a short-term lease for August and was told I could return to my regular office Sept. 1, which I did.

On Aug. 31, 2020, Doc had a middle cerebral artery stroke. He received the clot buster within 40 minutes and was in surgery within 90 minutes. He regained consciousness and lucidity but would always have a left-sided disability. During his third postoperative day he was told that he would never again swallow properly, and he yanked out his nasogastric tube. He had always told me that he would not accept artificial feeding. M. Leslie Felmly, MD, a psychiatrist, died on Sept. 12, 2020, and I buried him beside his family in New Jersey, on Sept. 22, 2020.

After that, I needed routine and normalcy, and therefore, stayed out of work only on the day of Doc’s burial. I took on new patients and continued with my old patients. As the holidays neared I braced myself; for 26 years I had spent Thanksgiving and New Year’s with Doc and Christmas with my family in Texas. None of that was going to happen in 2020. My best female friend and her husband invited me to a socially distanced Thanksgiving meal with the two of them, and I accepted. Christmas and New Year’s I spent alone (I live alone and enjoy my company). Both of those holidays were made special because I spent the eve days at the dementia care facility.

I received my first Pfizer injection on Jan. 6, 2021. One day later, I went to a park to get COVID testing before I returned to the dementia care facility. There, I learned that I was COVID positive, and when I called into the dementia facility, I learned that one resident and several staff members had also tested positive. As I stood in the sunshine outside the testing facility I thought: “So, now what will I do with the rest of my life?”

I began to feel profoundly tired, and over time, developed what felt like a very bad head cold. I had no high temperature or difficulty breathing. Truly, the worst of it was the profound fatigue and the terrorizing fear that I would develop problems breathing. By Jan. 21, I had only symptoms of fatigue, and on the 23rd, I had a negative COVID test. I attributed my course and recovery to my whole-food plant-based diet and routine high-dose vitamin D₃ – in spite of my being an overweight, older African American woman. Through it all, I learned to ask for help, and one of my colleagues brought me a thermometer and 2 days of vegan Pho. I learned to be resourceful and ordered myself a fruit basket from Edible Arrangements when I was too fatigued to arrange deliveries by computer. I told Edible Arrangements that I was too weak to cut up a pineapple, and the manager included a cut-up pineapple in the box. I am grateful for the kindness of others.

I returned to work Jan. 25, and for most of each day, I feel better than I have ever felt in my adult life. It is amazing what 2 solid weeks can do for 50 years of arrears of sleep. The overwhelming fatigue was such that I could not not sleep. Thankfully, my remaining fatigue is less and less each day.

On Jan. 27, 2021, I received my second COVID vaccine injection and had no adverse reaction. Then on the 28th, I learned that my male cousin, who was just 6 months younger than I am, died of complications of COVID. Later, I learned that a resident of the dementia care facility had died from the same outbreak that had sickened me.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, I had tried so hard to remain healthy and COVID free and have my family, friends, and patients do the same. I planned, prepared, and executed but fate had other plans in store. Doc and my cousin are gone; I was exposed to COVID in my dementia care facility; and I know what matters for the rest of my life. I will continue to pursue and espouse health for me, my family, my friends, and my patients, and I will endeavor to be the best family member, friend, and physician that I can. To help with this, I remember the wise words of Dr. Felmly, “Your level of frustration will rise directly with your level of expectation” and “Above all else, remain flexible.” Going forward, I am reminded that I am not in charge; I am grateful for so many things; and I will continue to be as flexible as I can be.

Thelissa A. Harris, MD
Private Practice
Hartford, Conn.

 

Taking time for reflection

One year into the pandemic, I continue to learn to expect the unexpected, anticipate that things may not go as planned, accept that it is not business as usual, appreciate what I have, and focus on what is most important in my life – my family and most especially my children.

Despite the disruptions in our daily lives from the lockdowns, quarantines, and social distancing, my Catholic faith has grown stronger. I am not overly religious, but since the pandemic my children and I have attended online Mass regularly, sometimes in far away churches with different languages. It seems like we listen better now, reflect more on the homilies, and are really more in touch with our spirituality.

Professionally, I have seen the pandemic bring together geriatric psychiatrists from around the globe to tackle issues relevant to the mental health care of older adults. Within the International Psychogeriatric Association, we were spurred into collaborative actions with international colleagues in advocating for human rights of older adults in the context of the pandemic, creating online educational activities, and contributing to the special COVID-19 issue of the International Psychogeriatrics journal.

Maria I. Lapid, MD
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minn.

Concentrating on safety

The first year of the pandemic is over. How have my personal and professional goals changed? How has my life changed? Let us start with the latter.

I have been very lucky. I have continued to go into work at my hospital every day, which provides structure and socializing. My hospital has supplied PPE, although, like everywhere else, the rules keep changing.

Masks, face shield, goggles, etc.: I try to loop the mask around my earrings just right so it does not catch and pull the hooks off. I think the goggles make me look cool, like an ant man.

My world has narrowed to work and home. Like all of us, I no longer go to conferences. I do outpatient treatment from my office desk. I see inpatients from 6 feet away, in mask and goggles. The cookies I pass out are now individually wrapped. Takeout instead of restaurants. A new home gym.

I have learned a lot. I now know how to manage psychiatric wards where COVID clusters occur. How to transfer psychiatric patients who convert to COVID positive over to the medicine ward. I faithfully swab my own nose twice a week.

I am constantly saying (very nicely): “Please pull your mask up over your nose.” “Six feet apart, please.”

I saved my surgical masks in case I needed to reuse them. Fortunately, I did not. Now I have three overflowing drawers of masks. Plus, the heavy homemade cloth ones that friends and family sent.

Back to how have my goals changed? Basically they have not. I fix my eyes straight ahead and concentrate on safety. Safety of patients, staff, my family, myself.

And daily add another yellow, or blue, or white, surgical mask to the drawers.

Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH
Washington

 

Awaiting project’s return

I had been actively involved in community service as the cofounder of The Bold Beauty Project since 2015. We are a Miami-based nonprofit, and we pair women with disabilities with volunteer photographers and create art shows. Our motto: Disability becomes Beauty becomes Art becomes Change.

I have dedicated about half of my time to the project, and it has been incredibly rewarding. It all came to a halt in March 2020, and it has left a real void in my daily schedule and my psyche. I am eagerly awaiting the return of the Bold Beauty Project with a renewed appreciation and enthusiasm. I hope you will check us out boldbeautyproject.com. If you are inspired to get involved, please contact me at evaritvomd@gmail.com.

Eva Ritvo, MD
Private Practice
Miami Beach, Fla.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

From my residency training graduation date, June 1978, many changes to the family medicine specialty have occurred. These are not due to certification requirements but to the dilution of physician control in health care.

The need to provide more affordable health care by insurance companies while maintaining quality prompted more changes. Additionally, employer-based decisions to change insurance plans, since they were the payer for employer-based health insurance, sometimes yearly, prompted mandatory changes in health insurance.

To achieve hospital-based goals and cost containment the advent and use of hospitalists and the expanded use of physician extenders emerged. While I have some support for these changes, they have redefined elements of the Folsom report^, which concluded that every American should have a personal physician to care for them and help integrate them into the health care system.

Changes in the health care delivery system and insurance companies’ need to contain costs, while expanding preventative medicine, coupled with a decreasing number of trained family medicine physicians, represents the background of some of the changes in family medicine over the past 50 years. Managed health care, I believe, was certainly part of the answer to implementing the following recommendation of the Folsom report: every American should have a physician-manager for their health care.

Despite the continual output of new family physicians, a shortage of physicians trained in this specialty remained. Advances in health care, which lengthened life expectancy and the fact that most health insurance companies required its members to name a primary care physician expanded the population requiring primary health care services. This only exacerbated the shortage of family physicians and lowered earning power for doctors practicing family medicine, and it created greater professional demands on family physicians, compared with those in other, more limited-scope specialties. The primary care physician shortage needed to be addressed, prompting a redefinition in the traditional nurse practitioner role.
 

The expansion of nurse practitioners and physician assistants’ roles

The nursing profession began training advanced-placement nurses and instituted a Doctor of Nurse Practitioner degree. At the same time physician assistants, a program that began while I was a resident, had a further role expansion, including training confined to a single specialty area of medicine. These roles were expanded by state legislators who added them to the list of primary care providers, in some locations, permitting independent practice and placing the physician assistant under the state medical boards and the nurse practitioner and Doctor of Nurse Practitioners under the nursing boards, for expanded regulations and the implementation of the new provider requirements for licensure.
 

 

The effects of insurance companies on primary care physicians and patients

When I started practicing medicine the physician was truly the manager of a person’s health care. With the advent of managed health care, that has changed. Physicians are no longer the managers; an uninvited marriage between physician, physician extender, insurance company, employer, and patient jointly controls health care.

Patients are opting for less care at the cheapest price based on incentives driven by cost and abetted by insurance companies and employers. The cost of medications has increased and provider services, coupled with medication and specialty costs have nearly priced many beyond their economic limits to pay. As a result, the patient is not always as committed as their provider to meeting the metrics of their insurance company, especially if that is increasing their out-of-pocket cost.

In addition to usual services, the primary care physician is required to demonstrate the adequacy of services provided through meeting certain practice quality metrics for nearly all insurance carriers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Because meeting these metrics carries a significant economic incentive many practices are retaining fewer noncompliant patients and have opted to bolster their bottom line with the more complaint. This adversely impacts the delivery of primary care to a significant portion of the population.

Patients that reside in poorer neighborhoods, rural areas, as well the marginalized compose a significant portion of many primary care provider’s practices and make up a significant percentage of noncompliant patients. Recognizing that the primary care physician’s overhead is high, coupled with the amount of financial and personal resources put into place to meet metrics, it costs much more to care for the marginalized, poor, and rural populations than easier-to-care for patient groups. This creates a disparity in health care.

A study that revisited the Folsom report concluded that “the 21st century primary care physician must be a true public health professional, forming partnerships and assisting data sharing with community organizations to facilitate healthy changes.” These observations have redefined primary care. This type of medicine is no longer tied to a physician; it is tied to a fairly expensive team of providers, which includes a nurse manager, physician, physician extender, social worker, and in some cases, a pharmacist. The days of mostly solo practitioners are waning and the days of the traditional family medicine residency training requires continuous nuancing, to accommodate the expanded list of practice-related responsibilities assigned to the family doctor.
 

Low reimbursements rates and high office overhead

The last change I have observed in the practice of family medicine over the past 50 years is a decline in the ratio of reimbursement rate for services to practice expenses. Many practitioners opt out of Medicaid or have certainly curtailed the number of Medicaid recipients on their panel because of its unacceptably low reimbursement rates combined with their high office overhead. The requirements for organizing community resources, including nursing agencies and church and community groups, carry no reimbursement for time invested. The primary care provider is responsible and evaluated on patient outcomes despite the noncompliant behavior of the patient.

 

What is the future of the primary care physician or provider?

The factors that determine this answer lie in what will be required of the provider and the role of the insurance company in assisting the provider of services. Insurance companies have a responsibility because they receive money to pay for metrics while remaining profitable. They must be brought into the success formula and assist the provider in order for the latter to survive. Currently the primary care provider, in an abundance of caution, is required to seek more specialty services, which drives up the cost of health care. Instead, the insurance company should allow the primary care provider to direct the health care and stop being the manager, approving or disapproving services. In summary, much has happened in family medicine over the past 50 years. The ongoing personal doctor-patient relationship has turned into a doctor-patient-insurance company relationship. The introduction of the third party has created an economic incentive for the physician to meet practice metrics, which sometimes, from the patient’s economic perspective, creates economic hardship.

Some patients enlist a primary care physician in name only but continue to drive their health care by the older model, thanks to the advent of the urgent care centers. These patients see participating in the crisis-care model as resulting in lower out-of-pocket costs. Insurance companies should enlist patient support by expanding their patient education to include the benefits of health, the benefits of meeting quality metrics by their physician, and the necessity of maintaining a compliant doctor-patient relationship. Just as they offer incentives to the primary care practitioner for meeting quality metrics incentives should be offered to those patients that meet quality metrics as well.

In the 21st century, a new model of health care emerged, which includes a primary care practitioner, nurse manager-educator, social worker, and a pharmacist. To deliver quality health care one person can’t be responsible for this burden and do it effectively. Many family practice residencies already use this model and most likely advise their graduates to seek employment where this model exists. Additionally, I am sure that family practice residencies are continually nuanced to achieve the teaching mantra required for successful postgraduate employment and good patient outcomes.
 

What is the future of family medicine?

The family medicine specialty is represented by a practice that looks at outcome metrics primarily without an incentive for helping the marginalized, poor, homeless, and displaced members of our society.

Urban family medicine, much like what I have practiced in this my 43rd year, is different. My practice community includes every segment of society and my approach lies in the improvement of outcomes from all that I serve. It is my impression that the future of family medicine education must include all members of our society and train residents to effectively care for all, irrespective of economic status, and evolve ways to improve the health outcomes for all.

The federal government, through reimbursement and incentive programs, needs to include such efforts in the model of care for these individuals to reduce the expense burden on the practitioner achieving better practice success and less burnout.

Dr. Betton practices family medicine in Little Rock, Ark. He also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at dermnews@mdedge.com.

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at dermnews@mdedge.com.

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history.

–Robert Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 1966
 

Well, you may not know it, but price transparency is coming to medicine, including dermatology. The transparency of coverage rule was finalized and released on Oct. 29, 2020, by the

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It has survived a challenge by the American Hospital Association in federal court, which generally means it is going to “stick.” Its effects should start to appear on Jan. 1, 2022.

The newly finalized rule will require insurers to publicly disclose in-network provider-negotiated rates, historical out-of-network allowed amounts, associated facility fees, and drug-pricing information in easily accessible machine-readable files. This information will be disclosed for the 500 most commonly billed physician services starting Jan. 1, 2022, and expanded to include all services the following year. Understand that you, as a practitioner, do not have to do anything, as insurers will do it for you, but your charge data will be on display. It is not clear if there is an appeal mechanism for physicians to correct erroneous data.

This should provide a fascinating look at just what things really cost, and may prove, as we suspect, small practices are less expensive. Important exemptions to reporting include emergency services, anesthesia, lab tests, and pathology fees, which will not be required, but recommended, to be disclosed.

Bear in mind that this rule was not designed to benefit physicians or hospitals, but rather to allow patients to comparison shop and drive down the cost of medical care. True price transparency may well accomplish this, particularly in our age of sky-high deductibles, if the information is accurate and readily accessible.

Although studies of patient behavior have shown that few patients actually use price comparison tools, the data required to be publicly disclosed and accessible will make this much easier. The Wall Street Journal or ProPublica will likely be all over this with applications to make comparisons easier. Still, many patients are price insensitive, particularly if they are Medicare recipients and only responsible for a nominal deductible.

Almost all the evaluation and management codes, as well as many dermatology procedure codes, are listed in the top 500 items and services included in the initial stage of the finalized rule. These include skin biopsies, destructions, drainages, several different benign and malignant excisions and, of course, Mohs surgery (but only the first stage, the 2nd stage will be listed in 2023).

While it is unlikely for patients to doctor shop for services that are performed on the same day as the office visit, such as a biopsies or destructions, we would expect comparisons for more expensive, planned procedures such as Mohs surgery and cancer excisions. Considering the rule, Mohs surgery may compare favorably to excisions performed in the hospital if the operating room charges are included, but not so well if the pathology and anesthesia charges are not included in the cost. It is inherently unfair to compare Mohs to excision in an operating room since the Mohs procedure has the anesthesia and pathology work embedded in the code (at 55% of the value of the code), and the multiple frozen sections taken by the surgeon in the operating room will not be listed as they are technically considered to be exempt additional pathology services.

This could put the Mohs surgeon in the interesting position of billing for excisions and frozen sections instead of Mohs surgery in order to compete with the hospital-based surgeon. This is not unbundling, if overall charges are lower and if distinctly different procedures are followed and different paperwork is generated. This is how I currently handle patients who demand Mohs surgery for inappropriate sites.

The effect on hospital groups that can charge facility fees could be quite dramatic, as it could be on large groups and on private equity groups who may have negotiated better rates. These increased costs will be revealed to consumers. In January 2023, the insurers will have to deploy a tool on their web site, updated monthly, that details rates for the 500 most common procedures for all in- and out-of-network providers and how much the patient can expect to pay out of pocket. All facility fees for procedures will be included. As noted earlier, we would expect third parties to already have done this. The historical and current costs for medications will also be included, which should make for interesting times in the pharmaceutical industry.

In January 2024, insurers will be required to post all the additional codes they cover, including complex closures, flaps, and grafts and any associated facility fees. Of course, a patient or a surgeon does not know what sort of repair a patient will need after Mohs surgery, but with high deductibles hitting harder, we would expect more patients requesting healing by second intent.

Whether these price comparisons will drive patients from relatively high-cost centers to less costly ones is unclear. This has certainly been the case for MRI and CT imaging. Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.

Whether the price differentials will allow smaller practices some leverage in negotiating rates is also uncertain. Who knows, perhaps the out-of-network rate is greater than what your contract currently specifies, which could spur you to drop their network entirely. There may be great opportunity here for the smaller practitioner who has been boxed out of the big-group pricing and networks.

Be prepared in January 2022, to discuss these issues with patients and insurers, and be sure to check where you fall in cost comparisons. What possible logic could an insurer have for excluding you from a network where your average charges are less than their current panel? As noted before, this may be a boon for small practices that have been forced to the fringes of reimbursement and an opportunity to demonstrate that they are really much less expensive. We live in interesting times.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Dr. Bishop is doing a fellowship in micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology with Dr. Coldiron at the Skin Cancer Center in Cincinnati. Write to Dr. Coldiron at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Obstetrician/gynecologists are often first-line providers in addressing mental health concerns for our patients. Routine screening for intimate partner violence, obtaining a history of sexual assault, and assessing patients for postpartum depression are among the many tools that we use to ascertain the psychological well-being of cisgender women. As transgender patients continue to seek care from ob.gyns., it is vital that we not only screen transgender patients for depression and intimate partner violence, but also assess factors relating to social support.

Mental health disorders disproportionately affect the transgender population. A large online survey showed that 41% of transgender patients had experienced suicidality, with rates among transgender youth even higher.¹ While the rates of sexual violence are higher among LGBTQ patients compared with cisgender counterparts, the rate of sexual assault is as high as 47% in the transgender population.^2,3 Additional surveys and studies have demonstrated that more than 70% of transgender individuals report discrimination in school (K-12), 27% have lost their jobs because of their gender identity; and 30% have experienced homelessness at some point.³ Tragically, these rates are further affected by race and ethnicity with American Indian (65%), multiracial (59%), Middle Eastern (58%), and Black (53%) respondents in the survey stating they were assaulted at some point.³

In a prepandemic world, mental health for transgender patients was influenced by several factors, such as stigmatization, health care disparities, limited access to health care, prolonged exposure to discrimination, lack of a supportive environment, and history of trauma or violence. During the pandemic, these factors have been magnified. Furthermore, many of the supportive services such as group meetings at LGBTQ centers, networking events/conferences, LGBTQ pride events, and social gatherings at bars or restaurants have been postponed, reduced to accommodate social distancing measures, or moved to virtual platforms.

While the pandemic has led to increased unemployment rates, concerns over housing and rent payments, and limiting one’s social circle in the general population, these rates are increased among LGBTQ adults. Data are limited on how significantly the pandemic has affected LGBTQ adults, but an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 56% of LGBTQ adults reported that they or someone they know lost a job, compared with 44% of non-LGBTQ adults.⁴ In addition, 75% of LGBTQ adults report that the pandemic has negatively affected their mental health, compared with 49% of the non-LGBTQ population.⁴ To my dismay, I’ve seen these statistics reflected in my own patient population.

Given this knowledge, it is even more crucial that obstetrician/gynecologists screen for depression, substance use, and intimate partner violence, in addition to assessing the patient’s social determinants for overall well-being. These often include determining a patient’s living situation, employment status, familial support, and social support. In my practice, if concerns are raised in any of these areas, we have a streamlined referral system connecting patients to a variety of therapists, psychologists, and/or social workers, with close follow-up on either a weekly or monthly basis depending on the particular issue the patient is facing. While many patients may be hesitant to go to in-office appointments or where transportation poses a barrier, telemedicine visits are useful adjuncts to assess patient’s overall well-being.

While the pandemic has been extraordinarily difficult for us all, it is important for us to be even stronger advocates for communities that have experienced further challenges as a result of this global tragedy.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

2. Black MC et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

3. James SE et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.

4. Dawson L et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBT people. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor. Kaiser Family Foundation. March 11, 2021.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Recommendations, as well as conspiracy theories about COVID-19, have changed at distressing rates over the past year. No disease has ever been more politicized, or more polarizing.

Experts, as well as the least educated, take a stand on what they believe is the most important way to prevent and treat this virus. Many medications have been touted as cures, even when doctors and scientists say they don’t work.

Just recently, a study was published revealing that ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment while people continue to claim it works. It has never been more important for doctors, and especially family physicians, to have accurate and updated guidelines.

The NIH and CDC have been publishing recommendations and guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Like any new disease, these have been changing to keep up as new knowledge related to the disease becomes available.
 

NIH updates treatment guidelines

A recent update to the NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines was published on March 5, 2021. While the complete guidelines are quite extensive, spanning over 200 pages, it’s most important to understand the most recent updates in them.

Since preventative medicine is an integral part of primary care, it is important to note that no medications have been advised to prevent infection with COVID-19. In fact, taking drugs for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEp) is not recommended even in the highest-risk patients, such as health care workers.

In the updated guidelines, tocilizumab in a single IV dose of 8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg can be given only in combination with dexamethasone (or equivalent corticosteroid) in certain hospitalized patients exhibiting rapid respiratory decompensation. These patients include recently hospitalized patients who have been admitted to the ICU within the previous 24 hours and now require mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Those not in the ICU who require rapidly increasing oxygen levels and have significantly increased levels of inflammatory markers should also receive this therapy. In the new guidance, the NIH recommends treating other hospitalized patients who require oxygen with remdesivir, remdesivir + dexamethasone, or dexamethasone alone.

In outpatients, those who have mild to moderate infection and are at increased risk of developing severe disease and/or hospitalization can be treated with bamlanivimab 700 mg + etesevimab 1,400 mg. This should be started as soon as possible after a confirmed diagnosis and within 10 days of symptom onset, according to the NIH recommendations. There is no evidence to support its use in patients hospitalized because of infection. However, it can be used in patients hospitalized for other reasons who have mild to moderate infection, but should be reserved – because of limited supply – for those with the highest risk of complications.
 

Hydroxychloroquine and casirivimab + imdevimab

One medication that has been touted in the media as a tool to treat COVID-19 has been hydroxychloroquine. Past guidelines recommended against this medication as a treatment because it lacked efficacy and posed risks for no therapeutic benefit. The most recent guidelines also recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis.

Casirivimab + imdevimab has been another talked about therapy. However, current guidelines recommend against its use in hospitalized patients. In addition, it is advised that hospitalized patients be enrolled in a clinical trial to receive it.

Since the pandemic began, the world has seen more than 120 million infections and more than 2 million deaths. Family physicians have a vital role to play as we are often the first ones patients turn to for treatment and advice. It is imperative we stay current with the guidelines and follow the most recent updates as research data are published.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The public health crisis sparked by COVID-19 has engendered much debate in the realm where politics, journalism, law, and medicine meet.

Doctors have used the media to name other doctors as sources of harmful misinformation, in some cases going so far as to invoke medical practice board oversight as a potential intervention when doctors make public statements deemed too far out of bounds scientifically. Over the past year, some physicians have been harshly criticized for speaking about off-label prescribing, a widely accepted part of everyday medical practice.

The science and ethics of off-label prescribing have not changed; what has changed is the quality of dialogue around it. As psychiatrists, it does not fall within our scope of practice to offer definitive public opinions on the treatment of COVID-19, nor is that our purpose here. However, we can speak to a process that damages patients and doctors alike by undermining trust. All of this heat around bad medical information, in our opinion, amounts to using the methods of other fields to evaluate science and clinical practice. A remedy, then, to improve the quality of public medical intelligence would be to clarify the rules of scientific debate and to once again clearly state that off-label prescribing is part and parcel of the good practice of clinical medicine.

Physicians who work in the field of professional discipline have thought about the limits of propriety in making charges of impropriety. We (R.S.E. and R.S.K.) asked the American Psychiatric Association’s Ethics Committee to expand upon its existing commentary on innovative practice and making allegations of professional misconduct. We used the committee’s answers to our questions as the basis for the arguments we are making in this piece.

The APA’s Ethics Committee uses clear-cut benchmarks to define innovative medical care: “The standards of care ... evolve with evidence from research and observations of practice. Among the expected supports for innovative practice are scientific testing, peer-reviewed publication, replication, and broad or widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific or professional community.” When it comes to off-label prescribing for any medical condition, it is easy enough to ascertain whether clinical reports have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.

Two of the biggest blockbusters in psychiatry, chlorpromazine and lithium, began as drugs used for other conditions almost since the inception of our field. In other words, the use of these drugs for mental illness began, in today’s jargon, as off-label. We practitioners of psychiatry live in the land of off-label prescribing and have always comfortably done so. In fact, almost all of medicine does. The key in today’s world of best-practice medicine is obtaining a truly informed consent.

For COVID-19, our incredible psychotropic molecules may once again be doing some trail-blazing off-label work. Late last year, Eric J. Lenze, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Healthy Mind Lab at Washington University in St. Louis, reported in a preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 that those treated with fluvoxamine “had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days,” compared with those on placebo (JAMA. 2020;324[22]:2292-300). We were heartened to see Dr. Lenze discuss his work on a recent “60 Minutes” segment. David Seftel, MD, MBA, a clinician who administered fluvoxamine as early treatment for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a community of racetrack employees and their families in the San Francisco Bay Area, also was featured. Rather than waiting for the results of large clinical trials, Dr. Lenze and Dr. Seftel proceeded, based on reports published in peer-reviewed journals, to treat patients whose lives were at risk.

If we find ourselves strongly disagreeing about the science of off-label prescribing, the proper response is to critique methodologies, not the character or competence of colleagues. The APA Ethics Committee discourages use of the media as a forum for making allegations of incompetent or unethical practice: “Judgments regarding violations of established norms of ethical or professional conduct should be made not by individuals but by bodies authorized to take evidence and make informed decisions.”

At least one state legislature is taking action to protect patients’ access to the doctors they trust. In Arizona, SB 1416 passed in the Senate and is now working its way through the House. This bill would prohibit medical boards from disciplining doctors for speaking out about or prescribing off-label drugs when a reasonable basis for use exists.

Physicians in all specialties would do well to studiously observe the conventions of their profession when it comes to critiquing their colleagues. Psychological research on the “backfire effect” suggests that heavy-handed campaigns to enforce medical consensus will only harden minds in ways that neither advance science nor improve the quality of clinical decision-making.

Medical disciplinary boards and the news media were neither designed nor are they equipped to adjudicate scientific debates. Science is never settled: Hypothesis and theory are always open to testing and revision as new evidence emerges. There is a place in medicine for formal disciplinary processes, as well-delineated by professional bodies such as the APA Ethics Committee. Another important part of protecting the public is to support an environment of scientific inquiry in which diversity of opinion is welcomed. As physicians, we translate science into excellent clinical care every day in our practices, and we advance science by sharing what we learn through friendly collegial communication and collaboration.

Dr. Emmons is part-time clinical associate professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington, and is a past chair of the Ethics Committee for the Vermont District Branch of the American Psychiatric Association. He is in private practice in Moretown, Vt., and disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kohanski is in private practice in Dayton, N.J., and is a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. She also is the host and author of Clinical Correlation, a series of the Psychcast. Dr. Kohanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.