Practice Management

As hospitals and clinicians, we are facing increased scrutiny of the care we provide to our patients. There is increased demand for more transparency of our outcomes and a need for increased efficiency of the care we provide in the setting of already significant documentation burden and its known impact on provider burnout.

Clinical documentation integrity (CDI) is an instrumental department which supports complete and accurate documentation, serves as a bridge between physicians and hospital coders such that hospital reimbursement is appropriate and quality metrics are attributed appropriately to the hospital, service lines, and individual providers. Complete and accurate documentation also leads to the submission of coded/claims-based data reflecting provider true intent and to clinically valid data for research and patient centric purposes. For this reason, the physician adviser role as a liaison between physicians and CDI and coding, in addition to utilization management and case management, has become more commonplace. The physician adviser role has been a mainstay of CDI programs across the United States since as early as 2012.

At the University of Colorado Health (UCHealth), the physician adviser role first began in 2015 at our major academic medical center, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH). That physician adviser, after the additional physician adviser FTE at UCH, having established relationships with physicians across service lines, began to focus on CDI-related education and communication as it pertained to inpatient documentation.

At our institution we have approximately 500 advance practice providers (APPs). Approximately two-thirds of the APPs care for inpatients on a myriad of different service lines and, along with physician learners from interns to fellows, complete the bulk of the documentation in the electronic health record.

In early 2018, the UCHealth office of advanced practice collaborated with CDI in its mission to optimize documentation with the aim to have a positive impact on reimbursement and quality metrics while highlighting APP value. In the relatively early stages of the collaboration it became evident that an APP adviser could be an innovative and effective approach in engaging our many APPs with CDI as faculty members who are generally service line based and, as such, invested in hospital and service line outcomes.

A business case for a new position of APP adviser for CDI was formulated based on not only the number of APP faculty and learners at our institution, but also on the premise that the level of consistency APPs provide would increase reliability in the adoption and adaptation of documentation practices as medicine and coding rules evolve. In addition, APP documentation can stand alone without physician attestation or signature, unlike physicians in training, further making them ideally suited collaborators. The position was approved by hospital leadership and the first APP adviser for CDI in the country (of whom we are aware) was hired at UCH in July 2019.

University of Colorado

A dedicated APP CDI adviser facilitates the success of a CDI/APP collaboration through a better understanding of APP engagement needs largely by creating new and/or fostering existing relationships between the APP adviser and the APPs for each service line. The APP CDI adviser identifies the needs of the team in order to maximally enhance their documentation while illustrating how the work/collaboration can positively contribute to APP clinical and/or academic goals. The APP CDI adviser possesses a deeper knowledge of APP clinical work flow and how that work flow might be impacting the documentation. He or she utilizes information gathered from the APP team to create more efficient note templates, provide lunch and learns with different service line APPs, and offering 1:1 drop-in documentation support, allowing for more feedback flexibility in context of their clinical work flow.

This real time input may be received more positively and be perceived as less intimidating in the peer-to-peer context. The APP adviser also attends various educational forums to which the physician advisers may not have access. For example, the APP adviser attends monthly APP orientation to meet new APPs for the institution, attends APP council, is a member of the APP steering committee, and provides documentation tips for the APP monthly newsletter.

At this point we are in the process of collecting pre- and post data to illustrate the benefit of a CDI APP adviser (and the CDI APP collaboration as a whole) through metrics such as CC/MCC capture rate, case mix index, and mortality and length of stay as influenced by the level of complexity in documentation. We hope to add APPs as advisers across the UCHealth system over time and to continue to highlight and publish the experience and outcomes related to this innovative role as it evolves such that other institutions across the country will consider this type of collaboration.

Dr. Anoff is associate professor of clinical practice in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of clinical documentation integrity at University of Colorado Health, Denver. Ms. Brill is senior instructor in the department of neurosurgery and APP adviser of clinical documentation integrity at UCHealth Denver Metro.

As hospitals and clinicians, we are facing increased scrutiny of the care we provide to our patients. There is increased demand for more transparency of our outcomes and a need for increased efficiency of the care we provide in the setting of already significant documentation burden and its known impact on provider burnout.

Clinical documentation integrity (CDI) is an instrumental department which supports complete and accurate documentation, serves as a bridge between physicians and hospital coders such that hospital reimbursement is appropriate and quality metrics are attributed appropriately to the hospital, service lines, and individual providers. Complete and accurate documentation also leads to the submission of coded/claims-based data reflecting provider true intent and to clinically valid data for research and patient centric purposes. For this reason, the physician adviser role as a liaison between physicians and CDI and coding, in addition to utilization management and case management, has become more commonplace. The physician adviser role has been a mainstay of CDI programs across the United States since as early as 2012.

At the University of Colorado Health (UCHealth), the physician adviser role first began in 2015 at our major academic medical center, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH). That physician adviser, after the additional physician adviser FTE at UCH, having established relationships with physicians across service lines, began to focus on CDI-related education and communication as it pertained to inpatient documentation.

At our institution we have approximately 500 advance practice providers (APPs). Approximately two-thirds of the APPs care for inpatients on a myriad of different service lines and, along with physician learners from interns to fellows, complete the bulk of the documentation in the electronic health record.

In early 2018, the UCHealth office of advanced practice collaborated with CDI in its mission to optimize documentation with the aim to have a positive impact on reimbursement and quality metrics while highlighting APP value. In the relatively early stages of the collaboration it became evident that an APP adviser could be an innovative and effective approach in engaging our many APPs with CDI as faculty members who are generally service line based and, as such, invested in hospital and service line outcomes.

A business case for a new position of APP adviser for CDI was formulated based on not only the number of APP faculty and learners at our institution, but also on the premise that the level of consistency APPs provide would increase reliability in the adoption and adaptation of documentation practices as medicine and coding rules evolve. In addition, APP documentation can stand alone without physician attestation or signature, unlike physicians in training, further making them ideally suited collaborators. The position was approved by hospital leadership and the first APP adviser for CDI in the country (of whom we are aware) was hired at UCH in July 2019.

University of Colorado

A dedicated APP CDI adviser facilitates the success of a CDI/APP collaboration through a better understanding of APP engagement needs largely by creating new and/or fostering existing relationships between the APP adviser and the APPs for each service line. The APP CDI adviser identifies the needs of the team in order to maximally enhance their documentation while illustrating how the work/collaboration can positively contribute to APP clinical and/or academic goals. The APP CDI adviser possesses a deeper knowledge of APP clinical work flow and how that work flow might be impacting the documentation. He or she utilizes information gathered from the APP team to create more efficient note templates, provide lunch and learns with different service line APPs, and offering 1:1 drop-in documentation support, allowing for more feedback flexibility in context of their clinical work flow.

This real time input may be received more positively and be perceived as less intimidating in the peer-to-peer context. The APP adviser also attends various educational forums to which the physician advisers may not have access. For example, the APP adviser attends monthly APP orientation to meet new APPs for the institution, attends APP council, is a member of the APP steering committee, and provides documentation tips for the APP monthly newsletter.

At this point we are in the process of collecting pre- and post data to illustrate the benefit of a CDI APP adviser (and the CDI APP collaboration as a whole) through metrics such as CC/MCC capture rate, case mix index, and mortality and length of stay as influenced by the level of complexity in documentation. We hope to add APPs as advisers across the UCHealth system over time and to continue to highlight and publish the experience and outcomes related to this innovative role as it evolves such that other institutions across the country will consider this type of collaboration.

Dr. Anoff is associate professor of clinical practice in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of clinical documentation integrity at University of Colorado Health, Denver. Ms. Brill is senior instructor in the department of neurosurgery and APP adviser of clinical documentation integrity at UCHealth Denver Metro.

As hospitals and clinicians, we are facing increased scrutiny of the care we provide to our patients. There is increased demand for more transparency of our outcomes and a need for increased efficiency of the care we provide in the setting of already significant documentation burden and its known impact on provider burnout.

Clinical documentation integrity (CDI) is an instrumental department which supports complete and accurate documentation, serves as a bridge between physicians and hospital coders such that hospital reimbursement is appropriate and quality metrics are attributed appropriately to the hospital, service lines, and individual providers. Complete and accurate documentation also leads to the submission of coded/claims-based data reflecting provider true intent and to clinically valid data for research and patient centric purposes. For this reason, the physician adviser role as a liaison between physicians and CDI and coding, in addition to utilization management and case management, has become more commonplace. The physician adviser role has been a mainstay of CDI programs across the United States since as early as 2012.

At the University of Colorado Health (UCHealth), the physician adviser role first began in 2015 at our major academic medical center, the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH). That physician adviser, after the additional physician adviser FTE at UCH, having established relationships with physicians across service lines, began to focus on CDI-related education and communication as it pertained to inpatient documentation.

At our institution we have approximately 500 advance practice providers (APPs). Approximately two-thirds of the APPs care for inpatients on a myriad of different service lines and, along with physician learners from interns to fellows, complete the bulk of the documentation in the electronic health record.

In early 2018, the UCHealth office of advanced practice collaborated with CDI in its mission to optimize documentation with the aim to have a positive impact on reimbursement and quality metrics while highlighting APP value. In the relatively early stages of the collaboration it became evident that an APP adviser could be an innovative and effective approach in engaging our many APPs with CDI as faculty members who are generally service line based and, as such, invested in hospital and service line outcomes.

A business case for a new position of APP adviser for CDI was formulated based on not only the number of APP faculty and learners at our institution, but also on the premise that the level of consistency APPs provide would increase reliability in the adoption and adaptation of documentation practices as medicine and coding rules evolve. In addition, APP documentation can stand alone without physician attestation or signature, unlike physicians in training, further making them ideally suited collaborators. The position was approved by hospital leadership and the first APP adviser for CDI in the country (of whom we are aware) was hired at UCH in July 2019.

University of Colorado

A dedicated APP CDI adviser facilitates the success of a CDI/APP collaboration through a better understanding of APP engagement needs largely by creating new and/or fostering existing relationships between the APP adviser and the APPs for each service line. The APP CDI adviser identifies the needs of the team in order to maximally enhance their documentation while illustrating how the work/collaboration can positively contribute to APP clinical and/or academic goals. The APP CDI adviser possesses a deeper knowledge of APP clinical work flow and how that work flow might be impacting the documentation. He or she utilizes information gathered from the APP team to create more efficient note templates, provide lunch and learns with different service line APPs, and offering 1:1 drop-in documentation support, allowing for more feedback flexibility in context of their clinical work flow.

This real time input may be received more positively and be perceived as less intimidating in the peer-to-peer context. The APP adviser also attends various educational forums to which the physician advisers may not have access. For example, the APP adviser attends monthly APP orientation to meet new APPs for the institution, attends APP council, is a member of the APP steering committee, and provides documentation tips for the APP monthly newsletter.

At this point we are in the process of collecting pre- and post data to illustrate the benefit of a CDI APP adviser (and the CDI APP collaboration as a whole) through metrics such as CC/MCC capture rate, case mix index, and mortality and length of stay as influenced by the level of complexity in documentation. We hope to add APPs as advisers across the UCHealth system over time and to continue to highlight and publish the experience and outcomes related to this innovative role as it evolves such that other institutions across the country will consider this type of collaboration.

Dr. Anoff is associate professor of clinical practice in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of clinical documentation integrity at University of Colorado Health, Denver. Ms. Brill is senior instructor in the department of neurosurgery and APP adviser of clinical documentation integrity at UCHealth Denver Metro.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. health care system is famously resistant to government-imposed change. It took decades to create Medicare and Medicaid, mostly because of opposition from the medical-industrial complex. Then it was nearly another half-century before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

But the COVID-19 pandemic has done what no president or social movement or venture capitalist could have dreamed of: It forced sudden major changes to the nation’s health care system that are unlikely to be reversed.

“Health care is never going back to the way it was before,” said Gail Wilensky, a health economist who ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.

Ms. Wilensky is far from the only longtime observer of the American health care system to marvel at the speed of some long-sought changes. But experts warn that the breakthroughs may not all make the health system work better or make it less expensive.

That said, here are three trends that seem likely to continue.
 

Telehealth for all

Telehealth is not new; medical professionals have used it to reach patients in rural or remote settings since the late 1980s.

But even while technology has made video visits easier, it has failed to reach critical mass, largely because of political fights. Licensing has been one main obstacle – determining how a doctor in one state can legally treat a patient in a state where the doctor is not licensed.

The other obstacle, not surprisingly, is payment. Should a video visit be reimbursed at the same rate as an in-person visit? Will making it easier for doctors and other medical professionals to use telehealth encourage unnecessary care, thus driving up the nation’s $3.6 trillion health tab even more? Or could it replace care once provided free by phone?

Still, the pandemic has pushed aside those sticking points. Almost overnight, by necessity, every health care provider who can is delivering telemedicine. A new survey from Gallup found the number of patients reporting “virtual” medical visits more than doubled, from 12% to 27%, from late March to mid-May. That is attributable, at least in part, to Medicare having made it easier for doctors to bill for virtual visits.

It’s easy to see why many patients like video visits – there’s no parking to find and pay for, and it takes far less time out of a workday than going to an office.

Doctors and other practitioners seem more ambivalent. On one hand, it can be harder to examine a patient over video and some services just can’t be done via a digital connection. On the other hand, they can see more patients in the same amount of time and may need less support staff and possibly smaller offices if more visits are conducted virtually.

Of course, telemedicine doesn’t work for everyone. Many areas and patients don’t have reliable or robust broadband connections that make video visits work. And some patients, particularly the oldest seniors, lack the technological skills needed to connect.
 

Primary care doctors in peril

Another trend that has suddenly accelerated is worry over the nation’s dwindling supply of primary care doctors. The exodus of practitioners performing primary care has been a concern over the past several years, as baby boomer doctors retire and others have grown weary of more and more bureaucracy from government and private payers. Having faced a difficult financial crisis during the pandemic, more family physicians may move into retirement or seek other professional options.

At the same time, fewer current medical students are choosing specialties in primary care.

“I’ve been trying to raise the alarm about the kind of perilous future of primary care,” said Farzad Mostashari, MD, a top Department of Health & Human Services official in the Obama administration. Dr. Mostashari runs Aledade, a company that helps primary care doctors make the transition from fee-for-service medicine to new payment models.

The American Academy of Family Physicians reports that 70% of primary care physicians are reporting declines in patient volume of 50% or more since March, and 40% have laid off or furloughed staff. The AAFP has joined other primary care and insurance groups in asking HHS for an infusion of cash.

“This is absolutely essential to effectively treat patients today and to maintain their ongoing operations until we overcome this public health emergency,” the groups wrote.

One easy way to help keep primary care doctors afloat would be to pay them not according to what they do, but in a lump sum to keep patients healthy. This move from fee-for-service to what’s known as capitation or value-based care has unfolded gradually and was championed in the Affordable Care Act.

But some experts argue it needs to happen more quickly and they predict that the coronavirus pandemic could finally mark the beginning of the end for doctors who still charge for each service individually. Dr. Mostashari, who spends his time helping doctors make the transition, said in times like these, it would make more sense for primary care doctors to have “a steady monthly revenue stream, and [the doctor] can decide the best way to deliver that care: unlimited texts, phone calls, video calls. The goal is to give you satisfactory outcomes and a great patient experience.”

Still, many physicians, particularly those in solo or small practices, worry about the potential financial risk – especially the possibility of getting paid less if they don’t meet certain benchmarks that the doctors may not be able to directly control.

But with many practices now ground to a halt, or just starting to reopen, those physicians who get paid per patient rather than per service are in a much better position to stay afloat. That model may gain traction as doctors ponder the next pandemic, or the next wave of this one.
 

Hospitals on the decline?

The pandemic also might lead to less emphasis on hospital-based care. While hospitals in many parts of the country have obviously been full of very sick COVID patients, they have closed down other nonemergency services to preserve supplies and resources to fight the pandemic. People with other ailments have stayed away in droves even when services were available, for fear of catching something worse than what they already have.

Many experts predict that care won’t just snap back when the current emergency wanes. Mark Smith, MD, former president of the California Health Care Foundation, said among consumers, a switch has been flipped. “Overnight it seems we’ve gone from high-touch to no-touch.”

Which is not great for hospitals that have spent millions trying to attract patients to their labor-and-delivery units, orthopedic centers, and other parts of the facility that once generated lots of income.

Even more concerning is that hospitals’ ability to weather the current financial shock varies widely. Those most in danger of closing are in rural and underserved areas, where patients could wind up with even less access to care that is scarce already.

All of which underscores the point that not all these changes will necessarily be good for the health system or society. Financial pressures could end up driving more consolidation, which could push up prices as large groups of hospitals and doctors gain more bargaining clout.

But the changes are definitely happening at a pace few have ever seen, said Ms. Wilensky, “When you’re forced to find different ways of doing things, and you find out they are easier and more efficient, it’s going to be hard to go back to the old way.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Background: A small proportion of patients accounts for a large proportion of hospital use and readmissions. As hospitals and hospitalists focus efforts to improve transitions of care, there is a paucity of data that incorporates patients’ perspectives into the design of these programs.

A research coordinator conducted one-on-one semistructured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and then coded using a team-based approach; 26 patients completed the interview process. From the analysis, four major themes emerged: Major medical problems were universal but high hospital use onset varied; participants noted that fluctuations in their course were often related to social, economic, and psychological stressors; onset and progression of episodes seemed uncontrollable and unpredictable; participants preferred to avoid hospitalization and sought care when attempts at self-management failed. The major limitation of this study was the small sample size located at one medical center, creating a data pool that is potentially not generalizable to other medical centers. These findings, however, are an important reminder to focus our interventions with patients’ needs and perceptions in mind.

Bottom line: Frequently hospitalized patients have insights into factors contributing to their high hospital use. Engaging patients in this discussion can enable us to create sustainable patient-centered programs that avoid rehospitalization.

Citation: O’Leary KJ et al. Frequently hospitalized patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to high hospital use. J Hosp Med. 2019 Mar 20;14:e1-6.

Dr. Richardson is a hospitalist at Duke University Health System.

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

Sejal Hathi, MD, and two colleagues had long kicked around the idea of starting a nonprofit group that would center on civic and legal advocacy.

Courtesy Dr. Sejal Hathi

Once the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the three friends – who have a mix of legal, medical, and advocacy backgrounds – began chatting by email and through Zoom video meetings about how to make the plan a reality.

“When COVID came around, we began talking about where we could make a difference and help people where help was needed most,” said Dr. Hathi, an internal medicine resident at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “We decided the PPE issue makes a good first focus.”

The new organization – named Beacon – quickly mobilized, assembled their team, and launched a website. Beacon’s first project now aims to highlight and protect the legal rights of medical professionals who speak out about personal protection equipment (PPE) supply and other matters of public concern related to coronavirus.

In recent months, health care professionals have reported being reprimanded or even terminated for publicly discussing PPE shortages or sharing safety concerns. Other clinicians say they can’t share their experiences for fear of reprisal by their hospitals.

Courtesy John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

“The centrality of adequate PPE is pretty undeniable at this point,” said John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, JD, an attorney and cofounder of the organization. “In terms of speaking up about matters of workplace safety and public concern, when health care workers share knowledge, correct problems – and in some cases, blow the whistle – it affirmatively benefits medical science, disease control, and the public interest,” he said in an interview. “We have seen in other countries, the disastrous consequences that can stem from silencing medical professionals who try to speak out.”
 

Letter highlights hospitals’ obligations

As part of their efforts, Beacon leaders drafted a strongly worded letter on behalf of health care workers outlining the legal obligations of hospitals to ensure workplace safety, underscoring the federal protections that bar retaliation against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Whistleblower protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the False Claims Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, for instance, prohibit retaliation against employees for blowing the whistle on unsafe or unlawful conditions.

Beacon’s letter urges hospitals to adopt a uniform policy that recognizes “the importance and legitimacy of doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who research, write, and speak about the use and supply of PPE in addressing coronavirus.”

“We are deeply troubled by reports that medical professionals are being fired, retaliated against, disciplined, or threatened for speaking (or potentially speaking) about PPE shortages and related safety conditions that directly place their and their patients’ lives in danger,” the letter states. “As a matter of law, medical personnel have a wide range of rights that protect their employment status and ability to comment on matters of public concern (and provide a cause of action in court if these rights are violated).”

Dr. Hathi, who over the last decade has founded two social enterprises advancing women’s rights, said organizers have sent the letter to hospitals and health systems that were publicly reported or otherwise known to have threatened, terminated, or retaliated against employees for protesting PPE shortages or speaking up about unsafe working conditions during this crisis. The letter is available on the Beacon website.

“Many letters have been written [recently] criticizing hospitals for retaliating against their workers,” Dr. Hathi said. “Ours amplifies this voice. But it also serves as a tool for self-empowerment, a stark warning to health systems that their actions bear consequences, and an assurance to health workers across the country that we’re listening and we’re here to help them safeguard their rights and their dignity at work.”

Dr. Hathi and her colleagues have also circulated the letter on social media and other platforms as a petition that health care professionals and others can sign in support of fair and safe treatment of employees with respect to PPE. So far, the group has collected signatures from individuals, communities, and organizations representing about 35,000 people, Dr. Hathi said.

Workplace rights, legal options

Beacon leaders have also begun counseling and advising health care workers who have experienced retaliation or discipline associated with PPE issues. Educating medical professionals about their workplace rights and legal options is another key focus of the group, according to its founders.

“There are a flurry of reports coming our way about physicians and nurses, as well as other health care workers, who are for whatever reason being disciplined or retaliated against for simply seeking appropriate safety policies at their workplaces,” Dr. Hathi said. “What we’ve found is that many of them don’t even know what their options look like. Doctors, nurses, health care workers are not the typical type to engage politically, to speak out, [or to] advocate for themselves.”

In one instance, they heard from a physician who wanted to protect nurses at his hospital because they did not have masks and were being coughed on by COVID-19 patients. The doctor requested that his hospital supply masks to the nurses. After making the request, the physician was disciplined by hospital leadership, Dr. Hathi said. In another case, a physician assistant told the group she was terminated because she wanted to wear her own mask in a hospital that was treating COVID patients.

Courtesy Sheel Tyle

“She was not allowed to, and she was fired for even bringing it up,” said Sheel Tyle, JD, an attorney and Beacon cofounder.

Beacon intends to assist health care workers who face such retaliation and discipline in a number of ways, Mr. Tyle said. For instance, by helping an individual get compensation for what happened, aiding the professional in getting their job back, or helping the worker retain a severance package of some kind, he said.

“And then there is the larger public policy issue of preventing the hospital from being a bad actor,” Mr. Tyle said. “That can be done through state or federal complaints, largely under different statutes related to workplace protection or OSHA. Our group [has] lawyers that could represent clients individually as well as a number of friends who are attorneys in various states who we could partner with, depending on the situation.”

While the organization is positioned to represent health professionals in lawsuits if necessary, Mr. Tyle emphasized that litigation is not the intended goal of the group. Rather, they are seeking to deter hospitals and others from being “bad actors,” through any number of methods, including communication, advocacy, or complaints.

Ultimately, Dr. Hathi said she hopes the organization’s efforts activate health care workers as an organizing body and in the process, spark policy change at the federal level to better protect health care workers.

“The challenges we’re facing now – protecting workplace safety, employee voice, a living wage, adequate sick and family leave – long predate this pandemic,” Dr. Hathi said. “But they’ve deepened and acquired existential significance as, battered by policy failures and the unsparing virus itself, physicians shed their political indifference and join a growing nationwide chorus to restore workers’ rights and to fundamentally reimagine our broken healthcare system. Now, more than ever before, organizations like Beacon are vital for arming health workers in this fight.”

agallegos@mdedge.com

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is calling on Congress to permanently lift restrictions that have allowed unfettered delivery of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic, which experts say has been a boon to patients and physicians alike.

“We ask Congress to extend the telehealth waiver authority under COVID-19 beyond the emergency and to study its impact while doing so,” said APA President Jeffrey Geller, MD, in a May 27 video briefing with congressional staff and reporters.

The APA is also seeking to make permanent certain waivers granted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on April 30, including elimination of geographic restrictions on behavioral health and allowing patients be seen at home, said Dr. Geller.

The APA also is asking for the elimination of the rule that requires clinicians to have an initial face-to-face meeting with patients before they can prescribe controlled substances, Dr. Geller said. The Drug Enforcement Administration waived that requirement, known as the Ryan Haight Act, on March 17 for the duration of the national emergency.

Telemedicine has supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress, including Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) who said at the APA briefing he would fight to make the waivers permanent.

“The expanded use of telehealth has enormous potential during normal times as well, especially in behavioral health,” said Mr. Tonko. “I am pushing fiercely for these current flexibilities to be extended for a reasonable time after the public health emergency so that we can have time to evaluate which should be made permanent,” he said.

Dr. Geller, other clinicians, and advocates in the briefing praised CMS for facilitating telepsychiatry for Medicare. That follows in the footsteps of most private insurers, who have also relaxed requirements into the summer, according to the Medical Group Management Association.
 

Game changer

The Medicare waivers “have dramatically changed the entire scene for someone like myself as a clinician to allow me to see my patients in a much easier way,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer, University of California Davis Health. Within 2 weeks in March, the health system converted almost all of its regular outpatient visits to telemedicine, he said.

Dr. Yellowlees added government still needs to address, what he called, outdated HIPAA regulations that ban certain technologies.

“It makes no sense that I can talk to someone on an iPhone, but the moment I talk to them on FaceTime, it’s illegal,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a former president of the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Geller said that “psychiatric care provided by telehealth is as effective as in-person psychiatric services,” adding that “some patients prefer telepsychiatry because of its convenience and as a means of reducing stigma associated with seeking help for mental health.”

Shabana Khan, MD, a child psychiatrist and director of telepsychiatry at New York University Langone Health, said audio and video conferencing are helping address a shortage and maldistribution of child and adolescent psychiatrists.

Americans’ mental health is suffering during the pandemic. The U.S. Census Bureau recently released data showing that half of those surveyed reported depressed mood and that one-third are reporting anxiety, depression, or both, as reported by the Washington Post.

“At this very time that anxiety, depression, substance use, and other mental health problems are rising, our nation’s already strained mental health system is really being pushed to the brink,” said Jodi Kwarciany, manager for mental health policy for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, during the briefing.

Telemedicine can help “by connecting people to providers at the time and the place and using the technology that works best for them,” she said, adding that NAMI would press policymakers to address barriers to access.

The clinicians on the briefing said they’ve observed that some patients are more comfortable with video or audio interactions than with in-person visits.
 

Increased access to care

Telepsychiatry seems to be convincing some to reconsider therapy, since they can do it at home, said Dr. Yellowlees. The technology is a way of “enlarging the tent for us as a profession and providing more care,” he said.

For instance, he said, he has been able to consult by phone and video with several patients who receive care through the Indian Health Service who had not be able to get into the physical clinic.

Dr. Yellowlees said video sessions also may encourage patients to be more, not less, talkative. “Video is actually counterintuitively a very intimate experience,” he said, in part because of the perceived distance and people’s tendency to be less inhibited on technology platforms.“It’s less embarrassing,” he said. “If you’ve got really dramatic, difficult, traumatic things to talk about, it’s slightly easier to talk to someone who’s slightly further apart from you on video,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

“Individuals who have a significant amount of anxiety may actually feel more comfortable with the distance that this technology affords,” agreed Dr. Khan. She said telemedicine had made sessions more comfortable for some of her patients with autism spectrum disorder.

Dr. Geller said audio and video have been important to his practice during the pandemic. One of his patients never leaves the house and does not use computers. “He spends his time sequestered at home listening to records on his record player,” said Dr. Geller. But he’s been amenable to phone sessions. “What I’ve found with him, and I’ve found with several other patients, is that they actually talk more easily when they’re not face to face,” he said.
 

Far fewer no-shows

Another plus for his New England–based practice during the last few months: patients have not been anxious about missing sessions because of the weather. The clinicians all noted that telepsychiatry seemed to reduce missed visits.

Dr. Yellowlees said that no-show rates had decreased by half at UC Davis. “That means no significant loss of income,” during the pandemic, he said.

“The no-show rate is incredibly low, particularly because when you call the patients and they don’t remember they had an appointment, you have the appointment anyway, most of the time,” said Dr. Geller.

For Dr. Khan, being able to conduct audio and video sessions during the pandemic has meant keeping up continuity of care.

As a result of the pandemic, many college students in New York City had to go home – often to another state. The waivers granted by New York’s Medicaid program and other insurers have allowed Dr. Khan to continue care for these patients.

The NYU clinic also operates day programs in rural areas 5 hours from the city. Dr. Khan recently evaluated a 12-year-old girl with significant anxiety and low mood, both of which had worsened.

“She would not have been able to access care otherwise,” said Dr. Khan. And for rural patients who do not have access to broadband or smartphones, audio visits “have been immensely helpful,” she said.

Dr. Khan, Dr. Geller, and Dr. Yellowlees have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

PING – you look down at your phone and the words “URGENT – Meeting Today” stare back at you. The elevator door opens, and you step inside – 1 minute, the seemingly perfect amount of time for a quick inbox check.

As a hospitalist, chances are you have experienced this scenario, likely more than once. Email has become a double-edged sword, both a valuable communication tool and a source of stress and frustration.¹ A 2012 McKinsey analysis found that the average professional spends 28% of the day reading and answering emails.² Smartphone technology with email alerts and push notifications constantly diverts hospitalists’ attention away from important and nonurgent responsibilities such as manuscript writing, family time, and personal well-being.³

How can we break this cycle of compulsive connectivity? To keep email from controlling your life, we suggest the “Three Rs” (Resist, Reorganize, and Respond) of email effectiveness.
 

RESIST

The first key to take control of your inbox is to resist the urge to impulsively check and respond to emails. Consider these three solutions to bolster your ability to resist.

• Disable email push notifications. This will reduce the urge to continuously refresh your inbox on the wards.⁴ Excessively checking email can waste as much as 21 minutes per day.²
• Set an email budget.⁵ Schedule one to two appointments each day to handle email.⁶ Consider blocking 30 minutes after rounds and 30 minutes at the end of each day to address emails.
• Correspond at a computer. Limit email correspondence to your laptop or desktop. Access to a full keyboard and larger screen will maximize the efficiency of each email appointment.

REORGANIZE

After implementing these strategies to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox with the following two-pronged approach.

• Focus your inbox: There are many options for reducing the volume of emails that flood your inbox. Try collaborative tools like Google Docs, Dropbox, Doodle polls, and Slack to shift communication away from email onto platforms optimized to your project’s specific needs. Additionally, email management tools like SaneBox and OtherInbox triage less important messages directly to folders, leaving only must-read-now messages in your inbox.² Lastly, activate spam filters and unsubscribe from mailing lists to eliminate email clutter.
• Commit to concise filing and finding: Archiving emails into a complex array of folders wastes as much as 14 minutes each day. Instead, limit your filing system to two folders: “Action” for email requiring further action and “Reading” for messages to reference at a later date.² Activating “Communication View” on Microsoft Outlook allows rapid review of messages that share the same subject heading.

RESPOND

Finally, once your inbox is reorganized, use the Four Ds for Decision Making model to optimize the way you respond to email.⁶ When you sit down for an email appointment, use the Four Ds, detailed below to avoid reading the same message repeatedly without taking action.

• Delete: Quickly delete any emails that do not directly require your attention or follow-up. Many emails can be immediately deleted without further thought.
• Do: If a task or response to an email will take less than 2 minutes, do it immediately. It will take at least the same amount to retrieve and reread an email as it will to handle it in real time.⁷ Often, this can be accomplished with a quick phone call or email reply.
• Defer: If an email response will take more than 2 minutes, use a system to take action at a later time. Move actionable items from your inbox to a to-do list or calendar appointment and file appropriate emails into the Action or Reading folders, detailed above. This method allows completion of important tasks in a timely manner outside of your fixed email budget. Delaying an email reply can also be advantageous by letting a problem mature, given that some of these issues will resolve without your specific intervention.
• Delegate: This can be difficult for many hospitalists who are accustomed to finishing each task themselves. If someone else can do the task as good as or better than you can, it is wise to delegate whenever possible.

Over the next few weeks, challenge yourself to resist email temptations, reorganize your inbox, and methodically respond to emails. This practice will help structure your day, maximize your efficiency, manage colleagues’ expectations, and create new time windows throughout your on-service weeks.

Dr. Nelson is a hospitalist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Dr. Esquivel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

References

1. MacKinnon R. How you manage your emails may be bad for your health. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160104081249.htm. Published Jan 4, 2016.

2. Plummer M. How to spend way less time on email every day. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-spend-way-less-time-on-email-every-day. 2019 Jan 22.

3. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. New York: Free Press, 2004.

4. Ericson C. 5 Ways to Take Control of Your Email Inbox. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/03/17/5-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email-inbox/#3711f5946342. 2014 Mar 17.

5. Limit the time you spend on email. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/02/limit-the-time-you-spend-on-email. 2014 Feb 6.

6. McGhee S. Empty your inbox: 4 ways to take control of your email. Internet and Telephone Blog. https://www.itllc.net/it-support-ma/empty-your-inbox-4-ways-to-take-control-of-your-email/.

7. Allen D. Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity. New York: Penguin Books, 2015.

The American Academy of Neurology has published a position statement providing ethical guidance for neurologists caring for patients with neurologic disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The document, which was published online May 15 in Neurology, reviews adaptations to the inpatient and outpatient settings and addresses the need to develop protocols for the allocation of scarce medical resources. The guidance is the product of a joint committee of the AAN, the American Neurological Association, the Child Neurology Society, and the Neurocritical Care Society Ethics Committee.

“Now is one of the most challenging times of our careers as neurologists,” said James C. Stevens, MD, president of the AAN, in a press release. “Clinics and hospitals are adapting to caring for the most ill, managing scarce resources, and trying to protect people without the disease. As neurologists, we must continue to adapt our daily practice, continue to care for our most ill neurology patients, and help contribute to the care of those afflicted with COVID-19.”
 

The role of telehealth

The authors recommended that ordinary appointments be held using telehealth, which, they say, already has become part of patient care. Telehealth enables neurologists to continue providing care while reducing the risk of exposure to and spread of SARS-CoV-2. The disadvantages of telehealth are that it limits physical examinations and behavioral health examinations, the authors acknowledged. “Each clinician should decide, in concert with his or her patient, if an in-person evaluation warrants the risk of an encounter,” according to the guidance.

Neurologists also should advise their patients that their neurologic condition could affect their relative risk of hospitalization and death resulting from COVID-19. Patients with multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis, for example, may be receiving corticosteroids or immunomodulatory therapies that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. “Even if desired services are available, neurologists and their patients ought to consider whether their care plans can safely be delayed in order to mitigate risk,” wrote the authors. Neurologists must try to maintain the customary standard of care, however, for patients with neurologic disease severe enough to warrant hospitalization, such as stroke or epilepsy.
 

The potential need for triage

Resources such as ventilators and ICU beds are limited, and health care facilities have had to triage them during the pandemic. Patients with a neurologic disease that decreases their likelihood of survival from a respiratory illness may not be offered these resources. Neurologists should discuss with patients and decision makers the ways in which reduced resources might affect patient care. Neurologists must “be aware of the burden of disease in their local community and how healthcare leaders plan on coping with a surge,” according to the guidance.

Advance directives, which should be a standard part of clinical care, take on increased importance during the pandemic. Patients who have not completed advance care planning documents should be encouraged to do so, according to the authors. These documents include patients’ preferences for “do not attempt resuscitation” status. Nevertheless, “we must assure patients with chronic illness that diminished resources in this healthcare crisis will not restrict their access to comfort and palliative care,” the document states.
 

Scarce resource allocation protocols

In the event that a surge in patients overwhelms a hospital’s contingencies and forces it to operate in crisis mode, it should have a scarce resource allocation protocol in place.

“This will surely be the most challenging aspect of patient care during this pandemic public health emergency,” wrote the authors. To ensure transparency and to mitigate the emotional effect of these decisions on patients and clinicians, scarce resource allocation protocols should be developed by teams that include intensivists, clinical ethicists, and nursing representatives who are not directly involved in the care of the critically ill patients. The goal of these protocols is to maximize the number of lives saved. They generally include an initial patient assessment followed by regular reevaluations to determine whether patients using scarce resources are benefiting less than other patients who need the same resources. The protocols should consider not only patients with COVID-19 infection, but also patients with stroke, traumatic injury, influenza, and heart failure who may need the same resources. Race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomics, and perceived social worth should not influence care decisions, according to the guidance. Validated mortality prediction scales, such as the Glasgow Outcome Scale, can contribute to care decisions. Obtaining community input into these protocols will ensure trust in the health care system.

“If the situation necessitates hard decisions, we need to be fair, objective, transparent, and adamantly preserve our professional integrity,” wrote the authors. “Through it all, we owe it to our patients and families, as well as ourselves, to maintain our own health and wellness.”

The guidance was developed without funding, and the authors reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rubin MA et al. Neurology. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009744.

The American Academy of Neurology has published a position statement providing ethical guidance for neurologists caring for patients with neurologic disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The document, which was published online May 15 in Neurology, reviews adaptations to the inpatient and outpatient settings and addresses the need to develop protocols for the allocation of scarce medical resources. The guidance is the product of a joint committee of the AAN, the American Neurological Association, the Child Neurology Society, and the Neurocritical Care Society Ethics Committee.

“Now is one of the most challenging times of our careers as neurologists,” said James C. Stevens, MD, president of the AAN, in a press release. “Clinics and hospitals are adapting to caring for the most ill, managing scarce resources, and trying to protect people without the disease. As neurologists, we must continue to adapt our daily practice, continue to care for our most ill neurology patients, and help contribute to the care of those afflicted with COVID-19.”
 

The role of telehealth

The authors recommended that ordinary appointments be held using telehealth, which, they say, already has become part of patient care. Telehealth enables neurologists to continue providing care while reducing the risk of exposure to and spread of SARS-CoV-2. The disadvantages of telehealth are that it limits physical examinations and behavioral health examinations, the authors acknowledged. “Each clinician should decide, in concert with his or her patient, if an in-person evaluation warrants the risk of an encounter,” according to the guidance.

Neurologists also should advise their patients that their neurologic condition could affect their relative risk of hospitalization and death resulting from COVID-19. Patients with multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis, for example, may be receiving corticosteroids or immunomodulatory therapies that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. “Even if desired services are available, neurologists and their patients ought to consider whether their care plans can safely be delayed in order to mitigate risk,” wrote the authors. Neurologists must try to maintain the customary standard of care, however, for patients with neurologic disease severe enough to warrant hospitalization, such as stroke or epilepsy.
 

The potential need for triage

Resources such as ventilators and ICU beds are limited, and health care facilities have had to triage them during the pandemic. Patients with a neurologic disease that decreases their likelihood of survival from a respiratory illness may not be offered these resources. Neurologists should discuss with patients and decision makers the ways in which reduced resources might affect patient care. Neurologists must “be aware of the burden of disease in their local community and how healthcare leaders plan on coping with a surge,” according to the guidance.

Advance directives, which should be a standard part of clinical care, take on increased importance during the pandemic. Patients who have not completed advance care planning documents should be encouraged to do so, according to the authors. These documents include patients’ preferences for “do not attempt resuscitation” status. Nevertheless, “we must assure patients with chronic illness that diminished resources in this healthcare crisis will not restrict their access to comfort and palliative care,” the document states.
 

Scarce resource allocation protocols

In the event that a surge in patients overwhelms a hospital’s contingencies and forces it to operate in crisis mode, it should have a scarce resource allocation protocol in place.

“This will surely be the most challenging aspect of patient care during this pandemic public health emergency,” wrote the authors. To ensure transparency and to mitigate the emotional effect of these decisions on patients and clinicians, scarce resource allocation protocols should be developed by teams that include intensivists, clinical ethicists, and nursing representatives who are not directly involved in the care of the critically ill patients. The goal of these protocols is to maximize the number of lives saved. They generally include an initial patient assessment followed by regular reevaluations to determine whether patients using scarce resources are benefiting less than other patients who need the same resources. The protocols should consider not only patients with COVID-19 infection, but also patients with stroke, traumatic injury, influenza, and heart failure who may need the same resources. Race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomics, and perceived social worth should not influence care decisions, according to the guidance. Validated mortality prediction scales, such as the Glasgow Outcome Scale, can contribute to care decisions. Obtaining community input into these protocols will ensure trust in the health care system.

“If the situation necessitates hard decisions, we need to be fair, objective, transparent, and adamantly preserve our professional integrity,” wrote the authors. “Through it all, we owe it to our patients and families, as well as ourselves, to maintain our own health and wellness.”

The guidance was developed without funding, and the authors reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rubin MA et al. Neurology. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009744.

The American Academy of Neurology has published a position statement providing ethical guidance for neurologists caring for patients with neurologic disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The document, which was published online May 15 in Neurology, reviews adaptations to the inpatient and outpatient settings and addresses the need to develop protocols for the allocation of scarce medical resources. The guidance is the product of a joint committee of the AAN, the American Neurological Association, the Child Neurology Society, and the Neurocritical Care Society Ethics Committee.

“Now is one of the most challenging times of our careers as neurologists,” said James C. Stevens, MD, president of the AAN, in a press release. “Clinics and hospitals are adapting to caring for the most ill, managing scarce resources, and trying to protect people without the disease. As neurologists, we must continue to adapt our daily practice, continue to care for our most ill neurology patients, and help contribute to the care of those afflicted with COVID-19.”
 

The role of telehealth

The authors recommended that ordinary appointments be held using telehealth, which, they say, already has become part of patient care. Telehealth enables neurologists to continue providing care while reducing the risk of exposure to and spread of SARS-CoV-2. The disadvantages of telehealth are that it limits physical examinations and behavioral health examinations, the authors acknowledged. “Each clinician should decide, in concert with his or her patient, if an in-person evaluation warrants the risk of an encounter,” according to the guidance.

Neurologists also should advise their patients that their neurologic condition could affect their relative risk of hospitalization and death resulting from COVID-19. Patients with multiple sclerosis or myasthenia gravis, for example, may be receiving corticosteroids or immunomodulatory therapies that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. “Even if desired services are available, neurologists and their patients ought to consider whether their care plans can safely be delayed in order to mitigate risk,” wrote the authors. Neurologists must try to maintain the customary standard of care, however, for patients with neurologic disease severe enough to warrant hospitalization, such as stroke or epilepsy.
 

The potential need for triage

Resources such as ventilators and ICU beds are limited, and health care facilities have had to triage them during the pandemic. Patients with a neurologic disease that decreases their likelihood of survival from a respiratory illness may not be offered these resources. Neurologists should discuss with patients and decision makers the ways in which reduced resources might affect patient care. Neurologists must “be aware of the burden of disease in their local community and how healthcare leaders plan on coping with a surge,” according to the guidance.

Advance directives, which should be a standard part of clinical care, take on increased importance during the pandemic. Patients who have not completed advance care planning documents should be encouraged to do so, according to the authors. These documents include patients’ preferences for “do not attempt resuscitation” status. Nevertheless, “we must assure patients with chronic illness that diminished resources in this healthcare crisis will not restrict their access to comfort and palliative care,” the document states.
 

Scarce resource allocation protocols

In the event that a surge in patients overwhelms a hospital’s contingencies and forces it to operate in crisis mode, it should have a scarce resource allocation protocol in place.

“This will surely be the most challenging aspect of patient care during this pandemic public health emergency,” wrote the authors. To ensure transparency and to mitigate the emotional effect of these decisions on patients and clinicians, scarce resource allocation protocols should be developed by teams that include intensivists, clinical ethicists, and nursing representatives who are not directly involved in the care of the critically ill patients. The goal of these protocols is to maximize the number of lives saved. They generally include an initial patient assessment followed by regular reevaluations to determine whether patients using scarce resources are benefiting less than other patients who need the same resources. The protocols should consider not only patients with COVID-19 infection, but also patients with stroke, traumatic injury, influenza, and heart failure who may need the same resources. Race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomics, and perceived social worth should not influence care decisions, according to the guidance. Validated mortality prediction scales, such as the Glasgow Outcome Scale, can contribute to care decisions. Obtaining community input into these protocols will ensure trust in the health care system.

“If the situation necessitates hard decisions, we need to be fair, objective, transparent, and adamantly preserve our professional integrity,” wrote the authors. “Through it all, we owe it to our patients and families, as well as ourselves, to maintain our own health and wellness.”

The guidance was developed without funding, and the authors reported no relevant disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rubin MA et al. Neurology. 2020 May 15. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009744.

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

Hazard pay for frontline health care workers – an idea that has been championed by President Donald J. Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, among others – is included in a just-released COVID-19 relief package assembled by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The $3 trillion HEROES Act requests a reported $200 billion for a Heroes Fund that would award hazard pay to essential workers, including those in the health field, according to a report in the Washington Post.

But it is far from a done deal. “The Democrats’ spending bill is a Pelosi-led pipe dream written in private,” said House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) in a Fox News interview posted May 12 on Facebook.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell condemned the package. “This is exactly the wrong approach,” he said in a prepared statement that instead laid out a variety of liability protections, which he said should be the first priority.

“We are not going to let health care heroes emerge from this crisis facing a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits so that trial lawyers can line their pockets,” said Sen. McConnell, adding that his plan would “raise the liability threshold for COVID-related malpractice lawsuits.”

Ingrida Lusis, vice president of government affairs and health policy at the American Nurses Association, said in an interview that the ANA had lobbied for hazard pay and was told it would be in the next relief package.

“Though there is an inherent risk in the nursing profession, we think that this is really critical to ensuring that we have a workforce to meet the intense demands of this pandemic,” said Ms. Lusis.

“If health care workers are not treated and compensated appropriately for what they’re going through right now, then we may not have a next generation that will want to enter the field,” she said.

Various nursing organizations, nurses’ unions, and health care unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union, have advocated for hazard pay.

Physicians’ organizations have not been vocal on the issue, however. The American Medical Association, for instance, pushed for hazard pay for residents but has not made any further public statements. An AMA spokesman said that the group was monitoring the situation but declined further comment.

Multiple online petitions seeking hazard pay for health care workers have been circulated, including one seeking the same $600 bump for essential workers that was given out as part of unemployment benefits in the first COVID-19 relief package. More than 1.2 million had signed the petition as of May 12.
 

‘Heroes fund’

The president first suggested hazard pay for health care workers on March 30 Fox News broadcast. “These are really brave people,” he said, adding that the administration was considering different ways of boosting pay, primarily through hospitals.

“We are asking the hospitals to do it and to consider something, including bonuses,” said Trump. “If anybody’s entitled to it, they are.”

On April 7, Sen. Schumer proposed a “Heroes Fund.” It would give public, private, and tribal frontline employees – including doctors, nurses, first responders, and transit, grocery, and postal workers – a $13 per hour raise up to $25,000 in additional pay through Dec. 31 for workers earning up to $200,000 and $5,000 in additional pay for those earning more than $200,000. It would also provide a $15,000 signing bonus to those who agree to take on such a position.

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) introduced a bill in mid-April, the Coronavirus Frontline Workers Fair Pay Act (HR 6709), that would provide similar pay increases. Health care workers would receive an additional $13 per hour. It would be retroactive to Jan. 31, 2020, and would be available through the end of 2020.

Molly Kinder of the Brookings Institution, a self-described nonpartisan Washington policy institute, estimates that Sen. Schumer’s proposal would represent the equivalent of double-time pay for the average low-wage worker, a 50% pay increase for a mail carrier, a 20% boost for a pharmacist, and less than a 15% increase for a surgeon, as determined from median 2018 wages.

Before the House Democrats unveiled their bill, Isabel Soto of the center-right group American Action Forum estimated that a $13 per hour wage increase could cost $398.9 billion just from the end of March to the end of September. A great proportion of that amount – $264 billion – would go to some 10 million health care workers, Ms. Soto calculated.
 

Some already offering pay boost

A few states and hospital systems are already offering hazard pay.

On April 12, Massachusetts agreed to give about 6,500 AFSCME union members who work at state human services facilities and group homes a $5 or a $10 per hour pay increase, depending on duties. It was to stay in effect until at least May 30.

Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) also agreed to increase pay by $3-$5 an hour for AFSCME workers in state correctional and mental health facilities beginning March 29.

In New York City, the biggest hospital network, Northwell Health, in late April gave 45,000 workers – including nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, environmental services workers, housekeepers, and people in outpatient and corporate roles – a lump sum bonus payment of up to $2,500 and 1 week of paid time off. The money came out of the system’s general fund.

“As an organization, we want to continue to support, motivate and inspire our team members,” said Northwell President and CEO Michael Dowling in a statement at the time.

On April 2, New York–Presbyterian Hospital’s chair of the department of surgery, Craig Smith, MD, announced that the facility was “providing a $1,250 bonus for everyone who has worked in or supported the COVID-19 front lines, for at least 1 week.”

Advocate Aurora, with 15 hospitals and 32,000 employees in Wisconsin, said in early April that it was giving increases of $6.25-$15.00 an hour at least through the end of May.

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

Over the last several weeks, hospitals and health systems have focused on the COVID-19 epidemic, preparing and expanding bed capacities for the surge of admissions both in intensive care and medical units. An indirect impact of this has been the reduction in outpatient staffing and resources, with the shifting of staff for inpatient care. Many areas seem to have passed the peak in the number of cases and are now seeing a plateau or downward trend in the admissions to acute care facilities.

During this period, there has been a noticeable downtrend in patients being evaluated in the ED, or admitted for decompensation of chronic conditions like heart failure, COPD and diabetes mellitus, or such acute conditions as stroke and MI. Studies from Italy and Spain, and closer to home from Atlanta and Boston, point to a significant decrease in numbers of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admissions.¹ Duke Health saw a decrease in stroke admissions in their hospitals by 34%.²

One could argue that these patients are in fact presenting with COVID-19 or similar symptoms as is evidenced by the studies linking the severity of SARS-Co-V2 infection to chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus and obesity.² On the other hand, the message of social isolation and avoidance of nonurgent visits could lead to delays in care resulting in patients presenting sicker and in advanced stages.³ Also, this has not been limited to the adult population. For example, reports indicate that visits to WakeMed’s pediatric emergency rooms in Wake County, N.C., were down by 60%.²

We could well be seeing a calm before the storm. While it is anticipated that there may be a second surge of COVID-19 cases, health systems would do well to be prepared for the “third surge,” consisting of patients coming in with chronic medical conditions for which they have been, so far, avoiding follow-up and managing at home, and acute medical conditions with delayed diagnoses. The impact could likely be more in the subset of patients with limited access to health care, including medications and follow-up, resulting in a disproportionate burden on safety-net hospitals.

Compounding this issue would be the economic impact of the current crisis on health systems, their staffing, and resources. Several major organizations have already proposed budget cuts and reduction of the workforce, raising significant concerns about the future of health care workers who put their lives at risk during this pandemic.⁴ There is no guarantee that the federal funding provided by the stimulus packages will save jobs in the health care industry. This problem needs new leadership thinking, and every organization that puts employees over profits margins will have a long-term impact on communities.

Another area of concern is a shift in resources and workflow from ambulatory to inpatient settings for the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for revamping the ambulatory services with reshifting the workforce. As COVID-19 cases plateau, the resurgence of non-COVID–related admissions will require additional help in inpatient settings. Prioritizing the ambulatory services based on financial benefits versus patient outcomes is also a major challenge to leadership.⁵

Lastly, the current health care crisis has led to significant stress, both emotional and physical, among frontline caregivers, increasing the risk of burnout.⁶ How leadership helps health care workers to cope with these stressors, and the resources they provide, is going to play a key role in long term retention of their talent, and will reflect on the organizational culture. Though it might seem trivial, posttraumatic stress disorder related to this is already obvious, and health care leadership needs to put every effort in providing the resources to help prevent burnout, in partnership with national organizations like the Society of Hospital Medicine and the American College of Physicians.

The expansion of telemedicine has provided a unique opportunity to address several of these issues while maintaining the nonpharmacologic interventions to fight the epidemic, and keeping the cost curve as low as possible.⁷ Extension of these services to all ambulatory service lines, including home health and therapy, is the next big step in the new health care era. Virtual check-ins by physicians, advance practice clinicians, and home care nurses could help alleviate the concerns regarding delays in care of patients with chronic conditions, and help identify those at risk. This would also be of help with staffing shortages, and possibly provide much needed support to frontline providers.

Dr. Prasad is currently medical director of care management and a hospitalist at Advocate Aurora Health in Milwaukee. He was previously quality and utilization officer and chief of the medical staff at Aurora Sinai Medical Center. Dr. Prasad is cochair of SHM’s IT Special Interest Group, sits on the HQPS Committee, and is president of SHM’s Wisconsin Chapter. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Wood S. TCTMD. 2020 Apr 2. “The mystery of the missing STEMIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

2. Stradling R. The News & Observer. 2020 Apr 21. “Fewer people are going to Triangle [N.C.] emergency rooms, and that could be a bad thing.”

3. Kasanagottu K. USA Today. 2020 Apr 15. “Don’t delay care for chronic illness over coronavirus. It’s bad for you and for hospitals.”

4. Snowbeck C. The Star Tribune. 2020 Apr 11. “Mayo Clinic cutting pay for more than 20,000 workers.”

5. LaPointe J. RevCycle Intelligence. 2020 Mar 31. “How much will the COVID-19 pandemic cost hospitals?”

6. Gavidia M. AJMC. 2020 Mar 31. “Sleep, physician burnout linked amid COVID-19 pandemic.”

7. Hollander JE and Carr BG. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-81. “Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19.”

Over the last several weeks, hospitals and health systems have focused on the COVID-19 epidemic, preparing and expanding bed capacities for the surge of admissions both in intensive care and medical units. An indirect impact of this has been the reduction in outpatient staffing and resources, with the shifting of staff for inpatient care. Many areas seem to have passed the peak in the number of cases and are now seeing a plateau or downward trend in the admissions to acute care facilities.

During this period, there has been a noticeable downtrend in patients being evaluated in the ED, or admitted for decompensation of chronic conditions like heart failure, COPD and diabetes mellitus, or such acute conditions as stroke and MI. Studies from Italy and Spain, and closer to home from Atlanta and Boston, point to a significant decrease in numbers of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admissions.¹ Duke Health saw a decrease in stroke admissions in their hospitals by 34%.²

One could argue that these patients are in fact presenting with COVID-19 or similar symptoms as is evidenced by the studies linking the severity of SARS-Co-V2 infection to chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus and obesity.² On the other hand, the message of social isolation and avoidance of nonurgent visits could lead to delays in care resulting in patients presenting sicker and in advanced stages.³ Also, this has not been limited to the adult population. For example, reports indicate that visits to WakeMed’s pediatric emergency rooms in Wake County, N.C., were down by 60%.²

We could well be seeing a calm before the storm. While it is anticipated that there may be a second surge of COVID-19 cases, health systems would do well to be prepared for the “third surge,” consisting of patients coming in with chronic medical conditions for which they have been, so far, avoiding follow-up and managing at home, and acute medical conditions with delayed diagnoses. The impact could likely be more in the subset of patients with limited access to health care, including medications and follow-up, resulting in a disproportionate burden on safety-net hospitals.

Compounding this issue would be the economic impact of the current crisis on health systems, their staffing, and resources. Several major organizations have already proposed budget cuts and reduction of the workforce, raising significant concerns about the future of health care workers who put their lives at risk during this pandemic.⁴ There is no guarantee that the federal funding provided by the stimulus packages will save jobs in the health care industry. This problem needs new leadership thinking, and every organization that puts employees over profits margins will have a long-term impact on communities.

Another area of concern is a shift in resources and workflow from ambulatory to inpatient settings for the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for revamping the ambulatory services with reshifting the workforce. As COVID-19 cases plateau, the resurgence of non-COVID–related admissions will require additional help in inpatient settings. Prioritizing the ambulatory services based on financial benefits versus patient outcomes is also a major challenge to leadership.⁵

Lastly, the current health care crisis has led to significant stress, both emotional and physical, among frontline caregivers, increasing the risk of burnout.⁶ How leadership helps health care workers to cope with these stressors, and the resources they provide, is going to play a key role in long term retention of their talent, and will reflect on the organizational culture. Though it might seem trivial, posttraumatic stress disorder related to this is already obvious, and health care leadership needs to put every effort in providing the resources to help prevent burnout, in partnership with national organizations like the Society of Hospital Medicine and the American College of Physicians.

The expansion of telemedicine has provided a unique opportunity to address several of these issues while maintaining the nonpharmacologic interventions to fight the epidemic, and keeping the cost curve as low as possible.⁷ Extension of these services to all ambulatory service lines, including home health and therapy, is the next big step in the new health care era. Virtual check-ins by physicians, advance practice clinicians, and home care nurses could help alleviate the concerns regarding delays in care of patients with chronic conditions, and help identify those at risk. This would also be of help with staffing shortages, and possibly provide much needed support to frontline providers.

Dr. Prasad is currently medical director of care management and a hospitalist at Advocate Aurora Health in Milwaukee. He was previously quality and utilization officer and chief of the medical staff at Aurora Sinai Medical Center. Dr. Prasad is cochair of SHM’s IT Special Interest Group, sits on the HQPS Committee, and is president of SHM’s Wisconsin Chapter. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Wood S. TCTMD. 2020 Apr 2. “The mystery of the missing STEMIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

2. Stradling R. The News & Observer. 2020 Apr 21. “Fewer people are going to Triangle [N.C.] emergency rooms, and that could be a bad thing.”

3. Kasanagottu K. USA Today. 2020 Apr 15. “Don’t delay care for chronic illness over coronavirus. It’s bad for you and for hospitals.”

4. Snowbeck C. The Star Tribune. 2020 Apr 11. “Mayo Clinic cutting pay for more than 20,000 workers.”

5. LaPointe J. RevCycle Intelligence. 2020 Mar 31. “How much will the COVID-19 pandemic cost hospitals?”

6. Gavidia M. AJMC. 2020 Mar 31. “Sleep, physician burnout linked amid COVID-19 pandemic.”

7. Hollander JE and Carr BG. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-81. “Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19.”

Over the last several weeks, hospitals and health systems have focused on the COVID-19 epidemic, preparing and expanding bed capacities for the surge of admissions both in intensive care and medical units. An indirect impact of this has been the reduction in outpatient staffing and resources, with the shifting of staff for inpatient care. Many areas seem to have passed the peak in the number of cases and are now seeing a plateau or downward trend in the admissions to acute care facilities.

During this period, there has been a noticeable downtrend in patients being evaluated in the ED, or admitted for decompensation of chronic conditions like heart failure, COPD and diabetes mellitus, or such acute conditions as stroke and MI. Studies from Italy and Spain, and closer to home from Atlanta and Boston, point to a significant decrease in numbers of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admissions.¹ Duke Health saw a decrease in stroke admissions in their hospitals by 34%.²

One could argue that these patients are in fact presenting with COVID-19 or similar symptoms as is evidenced by the studies linking the severity of SARS-Co-V2 infection to chronic conditions like diabetes mellitus and obesity.² On the other hand, the message of social isolation and avoidance of nonurgent visits could lead to delays in care resulting in patients presenting sicker and in advanced stages.³ Also, this has not been limited to the adult population. For example, reports indicate that visits to WakeMed’s pediatric emergency rooms in Wake County, N.C., were down by 60%.²

We could well be seeing a calm before the storm. While it is anticipated that there may be a second surge of COVID-19 cases, health systems would do well to be prepared for the “third surge,” consisting of patients coming in with chronic medical conditions for which they have been, so far, avoiding follow-up and managing at home, and acute medical conditions with delayed diagnoses. The impact could likely be more in the subset of patients with limited access to health care, including medications and follow-up, resulting in a disproportionate burden on safety-net hospitals.

Compounding this issue would be the economic impact of the current crisis on health systems, their staffing, and resources. Several major organizations have already proposed budget cuts and reduction of the workforce, raising significant concerns about the future of health care workers who put their lives at risk during this pandemic.⁴ There is no guarantee that the federal funding provided by the stimulus packages will save jobs in the health care industry. This problem needs new leadership thinking, and every organization that puts employees over profits margins will have a long-term impact on communities.

Another area of concern is a shift in resources and workflow from ambulatory to inpatient settings for the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need for revamping the ambulatory services with reshifting the workforce. As COVID-19 cases plateau, the resurgence of non-COVID–related admissions will require additional help in inpatient settings. Prioritizing the ambulatory services based on financial benefits versus patient outcomes is also a major challenge to leadership.⁵

Lastly, the current health care crisis has led to significant stress, both emotional and physical, among frontline caregivers, increasing the risk of burnout.⁶ How leadership helps health care workers to cope with these stressors, and the resources they provide, is going to play a key role in long term retention of their talent, and will reflect on the organizational culture. Though it might seem trivial, posttraumatic stress disorder related to this is already obvious, and health care leadership needs to put every effort in providing the resources to help prevent burnout, in partnership with national organizations like the Society of Hospital Medicine and the American College of Physicians.

The expansion of telemedicine has provided a unique opportunity to address several of these issues while maintaining the nonpharmacologic interventions to fight the epidemic, and keeping the cost curve as low as possible.⁷ Extension of these services to all ambulatory service lines, including home health and therapy, is the next big step in the new health care era. Virtual check-ins by physicians, advance practice clinicians, and home care nurses could help alleviate the concerns regarding delays in care of patients with chronic conditions, and help identify those at risk. This would also be of help with staffing shortages, and possibly provide much needed support to frontline providers.

Dr. Prasad is currently medical director of care management and a hospitalist at Advocate Aurora Health in Milwaukee. He was previously quality and utilization officer and chief of the medical staff at Aurora Sinai Medical Center. Dr. Prasad is cochair of SHM’s IT Special Interest Group, sits on the HQPS Committee, and is president of SHM’s Wisconsin Chapter. Dr. Palabindala is the medical director, utilization management and physician advisory services, at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. He is an associate professor of medicine and academic hospitalist in the UMMC School of Medicine.

References

1. Wood S. TCTMD. 2020 Apr 2. “The mystery of the missing STEMIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

2. Stradling R. The News & Observer. 2020 Apr 21. “Fewer people are going to Triangle [N.C.] emergency rooms, and that could be a bad thing.”

3. Kasanagottu K. USA Today. 2020 Apr 15. “Don’t delay care for chronic illness over coronavirus. It’s bad for you and for hospitals.”

4. Snowbeck C. The Star Tribune. 2020 Apr 11. “Mayo Clinic cutting pay for more than 20,000 workers.”

5. LaPointe J. RevCycle Intelligence. 2020 Mar 31. “How much will the COVID-19 pandemic cost hospitals?”

6. Gavidia M. AJMC. 2020 Mar 31. “Sleep, physician burnout linked amid COVID-19 pandemic.”

7. Hollander JE and Carr BG. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-81. “Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19.”