COVID-19 Updates

The 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. Fifty to 100 million individuals died worldwide, with approximately 675,000 deaths in the United States.^1-3 The fatality rate was approximately 2% and was highest during the second and third waves of the disease.⁴ At that time, there were no diagnostic tests for influenza infection, influenza vaccines, antiviral drugs, antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, or mechanical ventilation. Some cities decided to close schools, limit public gatherings, self-isolate, and issue quarantine orders; the federal government took no central role.

The 1918 influenza pandemic seems far away in history, but my mother often tells me stories about her own grandmother who disliked shaking anyone’s hands and would worry when people coughed or sneezed around her. It sounded like she was overreacting. Now, we can better relate to her concerns. Life has changed dramatically.

In mid-February 2020, news spread that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread from Wuhan, China, to a number of countries in Asia and the Middle East. I was following the news with great sadness for those affected countries, especially for Iran, my country of origin, which had become an epicenter of COVID-19. We were not worried for ourselves in the United States. These infections seemed far away. However, once Italy became the new epicenter of COVID-19 with alarmingly high death rates, I grasped the inevitable reality: The novel coronavirus would not spare the United States and would not spare New York.

Then the virus arrived in New York City. On March 10, 2020, our hospital recommended using teledermatology instead of in-person visits in an attempt to keep patients safe in their own homes. Cases of COVID-19 were escalating, hospitals were filling up, health care workers were falling ill, and there was a shortage of health care staff and personal protective equipment (PPE). Dermatologists at various hospitals were asked to retrain to help care for COVID-19 patients.

On March 13, flights from Europe to the United States were suspended. A statewide stay-at-home order subsequently went into effect on March 22. It felt surreal. From March 23 on, various specialty physicians and nurses in our hospital volunteered to work as frontline staff in the newly prepared annex where patients with possible COVID-19 would arrive. My dermatology co-residents and I started working as frontline physicians. Everything we had heard from the countries affected first had become our reality. Our hospital, part of the largest public health care system in the nation, became a dedicated COVID-19 treatment center.

Large numbers of scared patients with symptoms of COVID-19 flooded the annex. We sent the majority of them home, unable to offer them even a diagnostic test, and advised them to stay isolated. We only had the capacity to test those who required hospital admission.

It broke my heart even more when my colleagues became patients. We often felt helpless, not being able to help every patient and not being able to help our infected colleagues.

Elective surgeries were suspended. Inpatient beds, including specialized intensive care unit beds, rapidly filled up with COVID-19 patients. To help with the surge of patients, our hospital added medical and intensive care unit beds. The hospital became surreal, the corridors eerily empty and silent while every bed was filled, and health care workers were rushing around the inpatient units.

Life quickly became filled with fears—worries about how sick the patients would be, how much we would be able to help them, whether we would have enough PPE, who among our friends or family might be infected next, and whether we might ourselves be next. As PPE became scarce, I desperately searched for some form of protective equipment. I hunted for protective masks, face shields, eye protection, and gowns. We had to reuse disposable N95 masks and face shields multiple times and disinfect them as best we could. Our attendings ordered any protective gear they could find for us. Nearly everything was sold out; the very few items remaining would not for arrive for months. I could have never imagined that I would be afraid of going to work, of not having the appropriate protective gear, and that any day might be my last because of my profession.

New York City had become the epicenter of COVID-19. The city, the country, and the world were in chaos. Hospitals were overflowing, and makeshift morgues were appearing outside of hospitals. Those who could fled the city. Despite warnings from experts, we were not prepared. The number of deaths was climbing rapidly. There was no clarity on who could be tested or how to get it done. It felt like a nightmare.

Social distancing was in place, nonessential businesses were shut down, street vendors disappeared, and people were advised to wear face coverings. People were afraid of each other, afraid of getting too close and catching the virus. New York City—The City That Never Sleeps—went into deep sleep. Every day brought ever greater numbers of infected patients and more deaths.

Every day at 7:00 pm, people in New York City started clapping from their windows to salute health care workers, bringing tears to my eyes—tears for the gratitude of people mixed with tears of fear for my life and the lives of my patients and colleagues. I made arrangements for the event of falling ill, including a list of names and contact details of my family and close friends so they could be reached in case I ended up in intensive care or died.

After around 2 months of lockdown, New York City passed its peak, and the epicenter moved on. The current death toll (ie, confirmed deaths due to COVID-19) in New York stands at 18,836, while the reported death toll in the United States is 143,868, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New York City has started a phased reopening to a new normal. Elective care has resumed, and people are leaving their homes again, eager to bring some sense of normalcy back into their lives.

I fear for those who will contract the virus in the next wave. I wonder what we will have learned.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his friendship and invaluable assistance with the conception and editing of this manuscript.

The 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. Fifty to 100 million individuals died worldwide, with approximately 675,000 deaths in the United States.^1-3 The fatality rate was approximately 2% and was highest during the second and third waves of the disease.⁴ At that time, there were no diagnostic tests for influenza infection, influenza vaccines, antiviral drugs, antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, or mechanical ventilation. Some cities decided to close schools, limit public gatherings, self-isolate, and issue quarantine orders; the federal government took no central role.

The 1918 influenza pandemic seems far away in history, but my mother often tells me stories about her own grandmother who disliked shaking anyone’s hands and would worry when people coughed or sneezed around her. It sounded like she was overreacting. Now, we can better relate to her concerns. Life has changed dramatically.

In mid-February 2020, news spread that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread from Wuhan, China, to a number of countries in Asia and the Middle East. I was following the news with great sadness for those affected countries, especially for Iran, my country of origin, which had become an epicenter of COVID-19. We were not worried for ourselves in the United States. These infections seemed far away. However, once Italy became the new epicenter of COVID-19 with alarmingly high death rates, I grasped the inevitable reality: The novel coronavirus would not spare the United States and would not spare New York.

Then the virus arrived in New York City. On March 10, 2020, our hospital recommended using teledermatology instead of in-person visits in an attempt to keep patients safe in their own homes. Cases of COVID-19 were escalating, hospitals were filling up, health care workers were falling ill, and there was a shortage of health care staff and personal protective equipment (PPE). Dermatologists at various hospitals were asked to retrain to help care for COVID-19 patients.

On March 13, flights from Europe to the United States were suspended. A statewide stay-at-home order subsequently went into effect on March 22. It felt surreal. From March 23 on, various specialty physicians and nurses in our hospital volunteered to work as frontline staff in the newly prepared annex where patients with possible COVID-19 would arrive. My dermatology co-residents and I started working as frontline physicians. Everything we had heard from the countries affected first had become our reality. Our hospital, part of the largest public health care system in the nation, became a dedicated COVID-19 treatment center.

Large numbers of scared patients with symptoms of COVID-19 flooded the annex. We sent the majority of them home, unable to offer them even a diagnostic test, and advised them to stay isolated. We only had the capacity to test those who required hospital admission.

It broke my heart even more when my colleagues became patients. We often felt helpless, not being able to help every patient and not being able to help our infected colleagues.

Elective surgeries were suspended. Inpatient beds, including specialized intensive care unit beds, rapidly filled up with COVID-19 patients. To help with the surge of patients, our hospital added medical and intensive care unit beds. The hospital became surreal, the corridors eerily empty and silent while every bed was filled, and health care workers were rushing around the inpatient units.

Life quickly became filled with fears—worries about how sick the patients would be, how much we would be able to help them, whether we would have enough PPE, who among our friends or family might be infected next, and whether we might ourselves be next. As PPE became scarce, I desperately searched for some form of protective equipment. I hunted for protective masks, face shields, eye protection, and gowns. We had to reuse disposable N95 masks and face shields multiple times and disinfect them as best we could. Our attendings ordered any protective gear they could find for us. Nearly everything was sold out; the very few items remaining would not for arrive for months. I could have never imagined that I would be afraid of going to work, of not having the appropriate protective gear, and that any day might be my last because of my profession.

New York City had become the epicenter of COVID-19. The city, the country, and the world were in chaos. Hospitals were overflowing, and makeshift morgues were appearing outside of hospitals. Those who could fled the city. Despite warnings from experts, we were not prepared. The number of deaths was climbing rapidly. There was no clarity on who could be tested or how to get it done. It felt like a nightmare.

Social distancing was in place, nonessential businesses were shut down, street vendors disappeared, and people were advised to wear face coverings. People were afraid of each other, afraid of getting too close and catching the virus. New York City—The City That Never Sleeps—went into deep sleep. Every day brought ever greater numbers of infected patients and more deaths.

Every day at 7:00 pm, people in New York City started clapping from their windows to salute health care workers, bringing tears to my eyes—tears for the gratitude of people mixed with tears of fear for my life and the lives of my patients and colleagues. I made arrangements for the event of falling ill, including a list of names and contact details of my family and close friends so they could be reached in case I ended up in intensive care or died.

After around 2 months of lockdown, New York City passed its peak, and the epicenter moved on. The current death toll (ie, confirmed deaths due to COVID-19) in New York stands at 18,836, while the reported death toll in the United States is 143,868, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New York City has started a phased reopening to a new normal. Elective care has resumed, and people are leaving their homes again, eager to bring some sense of normalcy back into their lives.

I fear for those who will contract the virus in the next wave. I wonder what we will have learned.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his friendship and invaluable assistance with the conception and editing of this manuscript.

The 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. Fifty to 100 million individuals died worldwide, with approximately 675,000 deaths in the United States.^1-3 The fatality rate was approximately 2% and was highest during the second and third waves of the disease.⁴ At that time, there were no diagnostic tests for influenza infection, influenza vaccines, antiviral drugs, antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections, or mechanical ventilation. Some cities decided to close schools, limit public gatherings, self-isolate, and issue quarantine orders; the federal government took no central role.

The 1918 influenza pandemic seems far away in history, but my mother often tells me stories about her own grandmother who disliked shaking anyone’s hands and would worry when people coughed or sneezed around her. It sounded like she was overreacting. Now, we can better relate to her concerns. Life has changed dramatically.

In mid-February 2020, news spread that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread from Wuhan, China, to a number of countries in Asia and the Middle East. I was following the news with great sadness for those affected countries, especially for Iran, my country of origin, which had become an epicenter of COVID-19. We were not worried for ourselves in the United States. These infections seemed far away. However, once Italy became the new epicenter of COVID-19 with alarmingly high death rates, I grasped the inevitable reality: The novel coronavirus would not spare the United States and would not spare New York.

Then the virus arrived in New York City. On March 10, 2020, our hospital recommended using teledermatology instead of in-person visits in an attempt to keep patients safe in their own homes. Cases of COVID-19 were escalating, hospitals were filling up, health care workers were falling ill, and there was a shortage of health care staff and personal protective equipment (PPE). Dermatologists at various hospitals were asked to retrain to help care for COVID-19 patients.

On March 13, flights from Europe to the United States were suspended. A statewide stay-at-home order subsequently went into effect on March 22. It felt surreal. From March 23 on, various specialty physicians and nurses in our hospital volunteered to work as frontline staff in the newly prepared annex where patients with possible COVID-19 would arrive. My dermatology co-residents and I started working as frontline physicians. Everything we had heard from the countries affected first had become our reality. Our hospital, part of the largest public health care system in the nation, became a dedicated COVID-19 treatment center.

Large numbers of scared patients with symptoms of COVID-19 flooded the annex. We sent the majority of them home, unable to offer them even a diagnostic test, and advised them to stay isolated. We only had the capacity to test those who required hospital admission.

It broke my heart even more when my colleagues became patients. We often felt helpless, not being able to help every patient and not being able to help our infected colleagues.

Elective surgeries were suspended. Inpatient beds, including specialized intensive care unit beds, rapidly filled up with COVID-19 patients. To help with the surge of patients, our hospital added medical and intensive care unit beds. The hospital became surreal, the corridors eerily empty and silent while every bed was filled, and health care workers were rushing around the inpatient units.

Life quickly became filled with fears—worries about how sick the patients would be, how much we would be able to help them, whether we would have enough PPE, who among our friends or family might be infected next, and whether we might ourselves be next. As PPE became scarce, I desperately searched for some form of protective equipment. I hunted for protective masks, face shields, eye protection, and gowns. We had to reuse disposable N95 masks and face shields multiple times and disinfect them as best we could. Our attendings ordered any protective gear they could find for us. Nearly everything was sold out; the very few items remaining would not for arrive for months. I could have never imagined that I would be afraid of going to work, of not having the appropriate protective gear, and that any day might be my last because of my profession.

New York City had become the epicenter of COVID-19. The city, the country, and the world were in chaos. Hospitals were overflowing, and makeshift morgues were appearing outside of hospitals. Those who could fled the city. Despite warnings from experts, we were not prepared. The number of deaths was climbing rapidly. There was no clarity on who could be tested or how to get it done. It felt like a nightmare.

Social distancing was in place, nonessential businesses were shut down, street vendors disappeared, and people were advised to wear face coverings. People were afraid of each other, afraid of getting too close and catching the virus. New York City—The City That Never Sleeps—went into deep sleep. Every day brought ever greater numbers of infected patients and more deaths.

Every day at 7:00 pm, people in New York City started clapping from their windows to salute health care workers, bringing tears to my eyes—tears for the gratitude of people mixed with tears of fear for my life and the lives of my patients and colleagues. I made arrangements for the event of falling ill, including a list of names and contact details of my family and close friends so they could be reached in case I ended up in intensive care or died.

After around 2 months of lockdown, New York City passed its peak, and the epicenter moved on. The current death toll (ie, confirmed deaths due to COVID-19) in New York stands at 18,836, while the reported death toll in the United States is 143,868, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. New York City has started a phased reopening to a new normal. Elective care has resumed, and people are leaving their homes again, eager to bring some sense of normalcy back into their lives.

I fear for those who will contract the virus in the next wave. I wonder what we will have learned.

Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his friendship and invaluable assistance with the conception and editing of this manuscript.

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

In a large California health care plan, among patients with COVID-19, men aged 60 years and younger had a much higher risk of dying within 3 weeks of diagnosis if they had severe obesity as opposed to being of normal weight, independently of other risk factors.

The research shows that “obesity plays a profound role in risk for death from COVID-19, particularly in male patients and younger populations,” reported Sara Y. Tartof, PhD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, Calif., and coauthors.

The data “highlight the leading role of severe obesity over correlated risk factors, providing a target for early intervention,” they concluded in an article published online Aug. 12 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This work adds to nearly 300 articles that have shown that severe obesity is associated with an increased risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

In an accompanying editorial, David A. Kass, MD, said: “Consistency of this new study and prior research should put to rest the contention that obesity is common in severe COVID-19 because it is common in the population.”

Rather, these findings show that “obesity is an important independent risk factor for serious COVID-19 disease,” he pointed out.

On the basis of this evidence, “arguably the hardest question to answer is: What is to be done?” wondered Kass, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Although data consistently show that a body mass index >35 kg/m² is predictive of major health risks, “weight reduction at that level of obesity is difficult and certainly is not achieved rapidly,” Dr. Kass stressed.

“Therefore ... social distancing; altering behaviors to reduce viral exposure and transmission, such as wearing masks; and instituting policies and health care approaches that recognize the potential effects of obesity should be implemented,” he emphasized. “These actions should help and are certainly doable.”

Similarly, Dr. Tartof and colleagues said their “findings also reveal the distressing collision of two pandemics: COVID-19 and obesity.

“As COVID-19 continues to spread unabated, we must focus our immediate efforts on containing the crisis at hand,” they urged.

However, the findings also “underscore the need for future collective efforts to combat the equally devastating, and potentially synergistic, force of the obesity epidemic.”
 

COVID-19 pandemic collides with obesity epidemic

Previous studies of obesity and COVID-19 were small, did not adjust for multiple confounders, or did not include nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Tartof and coauthors wrote.

Their study included 6,916 members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health care plan who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from Feb. 13 to May 2, 2020.

The researchers calculated the risk for death at 21 days after a COVID-19 diagnosis; findings were corrected for age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking, myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, renal disease, metastatic tumor or malignancy, other immune disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, asthma, organ transplant, and diabetes status.

On the basis of BMI, the patients were classified as being underweight, of normal weight, overweight, or as having class 1, 2, or 3 obesity. BMI of 18.5 to 24 kg/m² is defined as normal weight.

Class 3 obesity, also called severe obesity, included moderately severe obesity (BMI, 40-44 kg/m²) and extremely severe obesity (≥45 kg/m²).

A little more than half of the patients were women (55%), and more than 50% were Hispanic (54%).

A total of 206 patients (3%) died within 21 days of being diagnosed with COVID-19; of these, 67% had been hospitalized, and 43% had been intubated.

Overall, the COVID-19 patients with moderately severe or extremely severe obesity had a 2.7-fold and 4.2-fold increased risk for death, respectively, within 3 weeks compared with patients of normal weight.

Patients in the other BMI categories did not have a significantly higher risk of dying during follow-up.

However, each decade of increasing age after age 40 was associated with a stepwise increased risk for death within 3 weeks of the COVID-19 diagnosis.
 

Risk stratified by age and sex

Further analysis showed that, “most strikingly,” among patients aged 60 and younger, those with moderately severe obesity and extremely severe obesity had significant 17-fold and 12-fold higher risks of dying during follow-up, respectively, compared with patients of normal weight, the researchers reported.

In patients older than 60, moderately severe obesity did not confer a significant increased risk for imminent death from COVID-19; extremely severe obesity conferred a smaller, threefold increased risk for this.

“Our finding that severe obesity, particularly among younger patients, eclipses the mortality risk posed by other obesity-related conditions, such as history of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, suggests a significant pathophysiologic link between excess adiposity and severe COVID-19 illness,” the researchers noted.

This independent increased risk for death with severe obesity was seen in men but not in women.

Men with moderately severe and extremely severe obesity had significant 4.8-fold and 10-fold higher risks of dying within 3 weeks, respectively, compared with men of normal weight.

“That the risks are higher in younger patients is probably not because obesity is particularly damaging in this age group; it is more likely that other serious comorbidities that evolve later in life take over as dominant risk factors,” Dr. Kass suggested in his editorial.

“That males are particularly affected may reflect their greater visceral adiposity over females, given that this fat is notably proinflammatory and contributes to metabolic and vascular disease,” he added.

“As a cardiologist who studies heart failure,” Dr. Kass wrote, “I am struck by how many of the mechanisms that are mentioned in reviews of obesity risk and heart disease are also mentioned in reviews of obesity and COVID-19.”

The study was funded by Roche-Genentech. Kass has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures of the authors are listed in the article.
 

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

Recently, OBG Management convened an expert panel of clinicians and thought leaders to discuss the changes needed in health care delivery—and in health care policy—that have risen to the forefront of consciousness as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Here is that stimulating exchange moderated by Editorial Board member Dr. Barbara Levy.

Barbara Levy, MD: The disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic has given us an opportunity to consider how we would recraft the delivery of health care for women if we could. My goal for this discussion is to talk about that and see if we can incentivize people to make changes.

Cindy, what are women looking for in health care that they are not getting now?

What women want in health care

Cynthia A. Pearson: Women, like men, want a sense of assurance that health care can be provided in a safe way, and that can’t be given completely right now.

Aside from that, women want a personal connection, ideally with the same provider. Many women are embracing telehealth, which came about because of this disruptive time, and that has potential that we can possibly mobilize around. One thing women don’t always find is consistency and contact, and they would like that.

Scott D. Hayworth, MD: Women want to be listened to, and they want their doctors to take a holistic and individualized approach to their care. In-person visits are the ideal setting for this, but during the pandemic we have had to adapt to new modalities for delivering care: government regulations restricting services, and the necessity to limit the flow of patients into offices, has meant that we have had to rely on remote visits. CareMount Medical has been in the forefront of telehealth with our “Virtual Visit” technology, so we were well prepared, and our patients have embraced this truly vital option. We’ve ramped up capabilities significantly to deal with the surge in volume.

While our practice has been able to provide consistent and convenient access to care, this isn’t the case in all areas of the country. Even before the pandemic, the cost of malpractice insurance has led to shortages of ObGyns; this deficit has been compounded by the closing of hospitals due to restrictions on services imposed to try to stem the spread of COVID-19. The affordability of care has also been jeopardized by job losses and therefore of employer-provided insurance, following months of lockdowns.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: To balance that long-term relationship with access and cost, clearly we are not delivering what is needed. Janice, at UnitedHealth you have experimented with some products and some different ways of delivering care. What are beneficiaries looking for?

Janice Huckaby, MD: There is a real thirst for digital content—everybody consults with Dr. Google. They are looking for reliable sources of clinical content. Ideally, that comes from their physician, but people access it in other ways as well.

I agree that women desire a personalized relationship. That is why we are seeing more communities of women, such as virtual pregnancy support groups, that have cropped up in the age of COVID-19. Women are not content with the idea of “I’m going to see my doctor, get my tummy measured, listen to the heartbeat, and go home.” That model is done. Patients will look for practices that are accessible at convenient times and that can give them the personalized experience to make them feel well cared for and that offer them a long-term relationship.

One concern is that as more obstetric groups use laborists to do their deliveries at the hospital, I wonder whether we do a good job of forming that relationship on the front end, and when it comes to the delivery, will we drop the ball? The jury is out, but it’s worth watching.

Dr. Levy: How do we as obstetrician-gynecologists get patients to consider that we are providing reliable information? There is so much disinformation out there.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA: I echo the sentiments discussed and I’ll add that many women want care that is convenient, close to home, coordinated, and integrated—not fragmented. They want their providers and their office to anticipate and know who they are even before they arrive, to be prepared for the visit. And it’s not only care for them, but also care for their families. Women are the gatekeepers to the health care system. They want a health care system in place that will care not just for each member separately but also for the family as an integrated whole.

To answer your question, Barbara, we have all been overwhelmed with the amount of data coming at us, both providers and patients. Teaching providers how to synthesize and integrate the data and then present it to patients is quite a challenge. We have to instill this skill in our trainees, teach them how to absorb and present the data.

Consensus bodies can help in this regard, and ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) has led the way in providing guidance around the management of pregnancy in the setting of COVID-19. Another reliable site for my trainees is UpToDate, which is easy to access. If a scientific paper comes out today, it will be covered in UpToDate tomorrow. Patients need someone who can synthesize the data and give it to them in little pieces, and keep it current.

Dr. Levy: We need to be a reliable source not only for medical information but also for referral to resources in the community for families and for women.

Continue to: ObGyn services...

 

 

ObGyn services: Primary care or specialty?

Dr. Norwitz: That begs the question, who are we? Are we primary care providers or are we a subspecialty, or are we both?

Ms. Pearson: Women, particularly in their younger, middle reproductive years, see their ObGyn as a primary care provider. The way forward for the profession is to embrace the call that Barbara articulated, to know what other referral sources are available beyond other clinicians. We need to be aware of the social determinants of health—that there are times when the primary care provider needs to know the community well enough to know what is available that would make a difference for that person and her family.

Dr. Levy: Scott, how do you manage that?

Dr. Hayworth: As reimbursement models move rapidly toward value, practices that can undertake risk are in the best position to thrive; specialty providers relying solely on fee-for-service may well be unable to survive. The key for any ObGyn practice is to be of sufficient size and scope that it can manage the primary care for a panel of patients, the more numerous the better; being in charge of those dollars allows maximum control. ObGyns who subspecialize should seek to become members of larger groups, whether comprehensive women’s health practices or multispecialty groups like ours at CareMount Medical, that manage the spectrum of care for their patients.

Dr. Levy: Janice, fill us in on some of the structures that exist now for ObGyns that they may be able to participate in—payment structures like the Women’s Medical Home. Does UnitedHealth have anything like that?

Dr. Huckaby: Probably 3 or 4 exist now, but I agree that risk arrangements are perhaps a wave of the future. Right now, UnitedHealth has accountable care organizations (ACOs) that include ObGyns, a number of them in the Northeast. We also rolled out bundled payment programs.

Our hospital contracts have always had metrics around infection rates and elective deliveries before 39 weeks, and we will probably start seeing some of that put into the provider contracts as well.

There is a desire to move people into a risk-sharing model for payment, but part of the concern there is the infrastructure, because if you are going to manage risk, you need to have staff that can do care coordination. Care coordinators can ensure, for example, that people have transportation to their appointments, and thus address some of the social determinants in ways that historically have not been done in obstetrics.

The ACOs sometimes have given seed money for practices to hire additional staff to do those kinds of things, and that can help get practices started. Probably the people best positioned are in large multispecialty groups that can leverage case management and maybe support other specialties.

I do think we are going to see a move to risk in the future. Obstetrics has moved at a slower pace than we have seen in internal medicine and some other specialties.

Dr. Hayworth: The value model for reimbursement can only be managed via care coordination, maximizing efficacy and efficiency at every level for every patient. Fortunately for ObGyns, we are familiar with the value concept via bundling for obstetrical services covering prenatal to postpartum, including delivery. ObGyn practices need to prepare for a future in which insurers will pay for patient panels in which providers take on the risk for the entirety of care.

At CareMount Medical, we have embraced the value model as one of 40 Next Generation Medicare Accountable Care Organizations across the country. We’ve put in place the infrastructure, from front desk through back office, to optimize resource utilization. Our team approach includes both patient advocates and care coordinators who extend the capabilities of our physicians and ensure that our patients’ needs, including well care, are met comprehensively.

Dr. Huckaby: One area that we sometimes leave out, whether we are talking about payment or a patient-centered medical home, is integration with behavioral health. Anxiety and depression are fairly rampant, fairly underdiagnosed, and woefully undertreated. I hope that our ObGyn practices of the future—and maybe this is the broadening into primary care—will engage and take the lead in addressing some of those issues, because women suffer. We need to embrace the behavioral aspect of care for the whole person more than we have.

Continue to: Physician training issues...

 

 

Physician training issues

Dr. Levy: I could not agree more. We have trained physicians to do illness care, not wellness care, and to be physician and practice centered, not patient centered. While we train medical students in hospital settings and in acute care, there’s not much training in how to manage people or in the factors that determine whether someone is truly well, such as housing security and food security. We are not training physicians in nutrition or in mental health.

Errol, how do we help an ObGyn or women’s health trainee to prepare for the ideal world we are trying to create?

Dr. Norwitz: It’s a challenging question. I like to reference a remarkable piece by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker, in which he interviewed the CEO of the Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain, who in effect said that we’ve got it all wrong; there’s no health in health care.¹ We don’t manage health; we wait until people get sick and then we treat them. We have to put the health back into health care.

It has always been my passion to focus on preventative care. We need to reclaim our identity—I have never particularly liked the name “ObGyn,” the term “women’s health” may be more appropriate and help us focus on disease prevention—and we need to stand up for training programs that separate the O from the G.

Low-volume surgeons, who may do only 1 or 2 hysterectomies per year, can’t maintain their proficiency, and many don’t do enough cases to maintain their robotics privileges. I can foresee a time where labor and delivery units are like ICUs, where the people who work there do nothing but manage labor and perform deliveries using standardized bundles of practice. Such an approach will decrease variability in management and lead to improved outcomes.

We need to completely reframe how we train our pipeline providers to provide care in women’s health. It would be difficult, take a lot of effort, and there would be pushback, I suspect, but that’s where the field needs to go.

The ideal system redesign

Dr. Levy: Cindy, if you could start from scratch and design an ideal comprehensive system to better deliver care for women of all ages, what would that look like?

Ms. Pearson: I would design a system in which people at any life stage met with providers who were less trained in dealing with disease and more trained in the holistic approach to maintaining health. That might be a nurse practitioner or maybe a version of what Errol describes as a new way of training ObGyns. That’s the initial interaction, and the person could be with someone for decades and deepen the relationship in that wonderful way. It would also have an avenue for the times when disease needed to be treated or when more specialized care would be provided. And the financing would be worked out to support consistency.

Dr. Norwitz: We can learn from other countries. Singapore, with only 5.5 million people, has the best health care system in the world. They have a great model. Costa Rica and Cuba have completely redesigned their health care systems. You go through medical school in 2 or 3 years, and then you get embedded in the community. So you have doctors living in the community responsible for the health of their neighbors. They get to know people in the context in which they live and refer them on only when they need more than basic care. These countries have vastly superior outcome measures, and they spend less money on health care.

Dr. Levy: My dream, as we reinvent things, is that we could create a comprehensive Women’s Medical Home where there’s a hub and an opportunity to be centered on patients so they could reach us when needed.

Ideally we could create a structure with a central contact person—a nurse practi­tioner, a midwife, someone in family medicine or internal medicine—someone focused on women’s health who has researched how inequities apply to women and women’s health and the areas where research doesn’t necessarily apply to women as just “smaller men.” Then we would have the hub, and the spokes—those would be mental health care providers, surgeons, and people to provide additional services when needed.

The only way I can figure how to make that work from a payment perspective is with a prospective payment system, a per member, per month capitated payment structure. That way, ancillary and other services would be available, and overtesting and such would be disincentivized.

Continue to: The question of payment...

 

 

The question of payment

Dr. Hayworth: I agree. For every practice, the two key considerations in addressing the challenges of capitation are, first, that the team approach is essential, and, second, that providers appreciate that everything they do for their patients is reimbursed in a global payment.

At CareMount Medical, our team system embeds advanced practice professionals in our primary care and ObGyn offices. Everyone—physicians, midwives, nurse practi­tioners—practices at the top of their license. Our care coordinators ensure that our patients’ health journeys are optimized from well care through specialized needs, engaging every member of the care team effectively.

To optimize our success in a risk model, we recognize that tasks and services that went without direct reimbursement in a fee-for-service arrangement are integral to producing the best outcomes for our patients. We examine everything we do from the perspective of how to provide the most advanced care in the most efficient manner. For example, we drive toward moving procedures from the hospital to the outpatient setting, and from the ambulatory surgical center to the office. This allows us maximal control of both quality and cost, with savings benefiting our group as well as the payers with whom we have contracts.

Dr. Norwitz: I have been fortunate to have trained and worked in 5 different countries on 3 continents. There’s no question there are better health care systems out there. Some form of capitation is needed, whether it’s value-based care or a risk-sharing arrangement. But how do you do it without a single payer? I don’t think you can, but I’m ready to listen.

Dr. Hayworth: You can have capitation without a single payer; in fact, it’s far better to have many payers compete to offer the greatest flexibility to both patients and providers. CareMount Medical has 650,000 patients who rely on us to provide their care with the utmost quality and affordability. In our Next Generation ACO, our Medicare patients have the benefit of care coordination in a team approach that saves our government money, and we are incentivized to do our best because some of those savings return to us.

The needs of Medicare patients, of course, are different from those in other age groups, and our contracts with other payers will reflect that distinction. There’s no inherent reason why capitation has to equal “single payer.” The benefits of the risk model are magnified by incentivizing all participants to provide maximum value.

Continue to: Ms. Pearson...

Ms. Pearson: I am going to comment on capitated care because I think educated consumers are well aware of the benefits of moving away from fee-for-service and bringing in some more sensible system. However, given the historical racial inequities and injustices, and lack of access and disparate treatment, capitation raises fear in the hearts of people whose communities have not gotten the care that they need.

The answer is not to avoid capitation, but to find a way for the profession to be seen more visibly as reflecting who they serve, and we know we can’t change the profession’s racial makeup overnight. That’s a generation-long effort.

Dr. Levy: For capitation to work, there has to be value, you have to meet the quality metrics. Having served on the National Quality Forum on multiple different committees, I am convinced that we measure what is easy to measure, and we are not measuring what really matters to people. My thought is to embrace the communities that have been underserved to help us design the metrics for a capitated system that is meaningful to the people that we serve.

Ms. Pearson: On the West Coast, some people are leading efforts to create patient-centered metrics for respectful maternity care led by Black, indigenous, and people of color communities that are validated with solid research tools.

Algorithms for care

Dr. Norwitz: Artificial intelligence (AI) may have a role to play. For example, I think we do a terrible job of caring for women in the postpartum period. We focus almost all of our care in the antepartum period and not postpartum. I am working with a group with a finance and banking background to try and risk-adjust patients in the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum period. We are developing algorithms using AI and deep learning technologies to risk-stratify patients and say, “This patient is low risk so can safely get obstetric care with a family medicine doctor or midwife. That patient requires consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist or a general internist,” and so on.

Ms. Pearson: As policy advocates, we are trying to get Medicaid postpartum coverage expanded to 12 months. Too many women fall into a coverage gap shortly after delivery; continued coverage would help improve postpartum outcomes. I am curious how an algorithm might help take better care of women postpartum.

Dr. Norwitz: Postpartum care is one of the greatest areas of need. I love the Dutch model. In the Netherlands, when a woman goes home after giving birth, a designated nurse comes home with her, teaches her how to breastfeed and how to bathe the baby, and assists with routine activities such as cooking and washing. And the nurse remains engaged for a prolonged period of time, paid for by the government. There are also other social welfare packages, such as a full 4-year or more maternity leave.

The solution is part political and part medical. We need to rethink our care model, and I don’t think we provide enough postpartum care.

Continue to: Dr. Hayworth...

Dr. Hayworth: Errol made an excellent point about AI. There is a product that’s being used in Europe and in some other parts of the world that can provide 85% of care through an algorithm without a patient even having to speak to a nurse or doctor. The company that offers the product claims a high level of patient satisfaction and a very low error rate.

We are a long way from the point at which—and I don’t anticipate that we’ll ever get there—AI fully replaces human providers, but there’s enormous and growing potential for data aggregation and machine learning to enhance, exponentially, the capabilities and capacity of care teams.

The most immediate applications for AI in the United States are in diagnostics, pathology, and the mapping of protocols for patients with cancer who will benefit from access to investigational interventions and clinical trials. As we gain experience in those areas, acceptance and confidence will lead steadily to broader deployment of AI, enhancing the quality of care and the efficiency of delivery and saving costs.

Dr. Norwitz: AI is a tool to assist providers. It is not going to replace us, which is the fear.

Ms. Pearson: From the consumer perspective, again, there is concern that if not enough data are available from Black, indigenous, and people of color, the levels won’t start out in a good place. The criticism over mammography randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has existed for a long time. The big trials that got all the way out to mortality did not include enough women of color; and so women of color rightly say, “Why should we believe these guidelines developed on results of the RCTs?” My point is that because of historical inequity, logical solutions such as algorithms do not always work for communities that were previously excluded or mistreated.

Dr. Levy: Your point is incredibly well taken. That means that those of us researching and working with AI need to ensure that the data going in are representative, that we are not embedding implicit biases into the AI algorithms, which clearly has sometimes already happened. We have to be careful to embrace input from multiple sources that we have not thought of before.

As we look at an algorithm for managing a postpartum patient or a postoperative patient, have we thought about how she’s managing her children at home after she goes home? What else is happening in her life? How can we impact her recovery in a positive way? We need to hear the voices of the people that we are trying to serve as we develop those algorithms.

Perspectives on future health care delivery

Dr. Levy: To summarize so far, we are thinking about a Woman’s Medical Home, a capitated model of comprehensive care for women that includes mental health, social determinants, and home care. There are different models, but a payment structure where we would have the capital to invest in community services and in things that we think may make a difference.

Dr. Norwitz: I think the health care system of the future is not going to be based in large academic medical centers. It’s going to be in community hospitals close to home. It’s going to be in the home. And it will be provided by different types of practitioners, whose performances are tracked using more appropriate outcome metrics.

Dr. Levy: I also think we will have community health workers. While we haven’t talked about rural health and access to care, there are some structural things we can do to reach rural communities with really excellent care, such as training community health workers and using telemedicine. It does require thinking through a different payment structure, though, because there really isn’t money in the system to do that currently, at least to my knowledge.

Janice, do we have enough motivation to take care of women? Women are so underrepresented when we look at care models.

Dr. Huckaby: I do think there is hope, but it will truly take a village. While CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has its innovation center in the Medicaid space, it’s almost like we have to have the payers, the government, the specialty societies, and so on say that we need to do something better. I mention the government because it is not only a payer but also a regulator. They can help create some of these things.

There are opportunities with payers to say, “Let’s move to this kind of model for that.” But still, we are implementing change but on a fairly minor scale.

We could have the people who care about issues, help deliver the care, pay the bills, and so on say, “This is what we want to do,” and then we could pilot them. It may be one type of pilot in a rural area and one type of pilot in an urban area, because they are going to differ, and do it that way and then scale it.

Telemedicine, or telehealth, is part of creating access. Even some nontraditional settings, such as retail store clinics, may work.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: Cindy, is there any last thing you wanted to comment on?

Ms. Pearson: All the changes we have talked about require public policy change. Physicians become physicians to take care of people, not because they want to be policy wonks like us. We love policy because we see how it can benefit. To our readers I say be part of making this generational change in the profession and women’s health care, get involved in policy, because these things can’t happen without the policy changes.

Dr. Norwitz: That is so important. In most developed countries around the world, you get trained in medical school, the cost of training is subsidized, and in return you owe 2 years of service. In this country, if we subsidized the training of doctors and in return they owed us 2 years of primary care service based in the community or in an underserved area, they would get valuable clinical experience and wouldn’t have so many loans to pay back. I think it is a policy that could work and could profoundly change the health care landscape in time.

Dr. Levy: And it would save a great deal of money. The reality is that if we subsidize medical education and in return required service in a national public health service, we would move providers out into rural areas. That would to some extent solve our rural problem. We would train people to think about diagnostic options when the resources are not unlimited, so that they will perhaps not order quite so many tests.

That policy change would foundationally allow for more minority students to become physicians and health care workers. If there were one thing we could do to begin to drive this change, that would be it.

Who would have thought a disruptive pandemic could affect the way people receive care, in bad and good ways? Some carriers, for example, are now paying for telehealth visits who previously did not.

Final thoughts

Dr. Hayworth: It’s an exciting time to be in medicine and women’s health: We are ushering in a new era in which we can fulfill the vision of comprehensive care, patient-focused and seamlessly delivered by teams whose capabilities are optimized by ever-improving technology. ObGyns, with our foundation in the continuum of care, have the experience and the sensibilities to adapt to the challenges of the value model, in which our success will depend on fully embracing our role as primary care providers.

Dr. Levy: Circling back to the beginning of our discussion, we talked about relationships, and developing deep relationships with patients is the internal reward and the piece that prevents us from burnout. It makes you feel good at the end of the day—or sometimes bad at the end of the day when something didn’t go well. Restructuring the system in a way that gets us back to personalized relationship-centered care will benefit ObGyns and our patients.

I thank you all for participating in this thoughtful discussion. ●

Recently, OBG Management convened an expert panel of clinicians and thought leaders to discuss the changes needed in health care delivery—and in health care policy—that have risen to the forefront of consciousness as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Here is that stimulating exchange moderated by Editorial Board member Dr. Barbara Levy.

Barbara Levy, MD: The disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic has given us an opportunity to consider how we would recraft the delivery of health care for women if we could. My goal for this discussion is to talk about that and see if we can incentivize people to make changes.

Cindy, what are women looking for in health care that they are not getting now?

What women want in health care

Cynthia A. Pearson: Women, like men, want a sense of assurance that health care can be provided in a safe way, and that can’t be given completely right now.

Aside from that, women want a personal connection, ideally with the same provider. Many women are embracing telehealth, which came about because of this disruptive time, and that has potential that we can possibly mobilize around. One thing women don’t always find is consistency and contact, and they would like that.

Scott D. Hayworth, MD: Women want to be listened to, and they want their doctors to take a holistic and individualized approach to their care. In-person visits are the ideal setting for this, but during the pandemic we have had to adapt to new modalities for delivering care: government regulations restricting services, and the necessity to limit the flow of patients into offices, has meant that we have had to rely on remote visits. CareMount Medical has been in the forefront of telehealth with our “Virtual Visit” technology, so we were well prepared, and our patients have embraced this truly vital option. We’ve ramped up capabilities significantly to deal with the surge in volume.

While our practice has been able to provide consistent and convenient access to care, this isn’t the case in all areas of the country. Even before the pandemic, the cost of malpractice insurance has led to shortages of ObGyns; this deficit has been compounded by the closing of hospitals due to restrictions on services imposed to try to stem the spread of COVID-19. The affordability of care has also been jeopardized by job losses and therefore of employer-provided insurance, following months of lockdowns.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: To balance that long-term relationship with access and cost, clearly we are not delivering what is needed. Janice, at UnitedHealth you have experimented with some products and some different ways of delivering care. What are beneficiaries looking for?

Janice Huckaby, MD: There is a real thirst for digital content—everybody consults with Dr. Google. They are looking for reliable sources of clinical content. Ideally, that comes from their physician, but people access it in other ways as well.

I agree that women desire a personalized relationship. That is why we are seeing more communities of women, such as virtual pregnancy support groups, that have cropped up in the age of COVID-19. Women are not content with the idea of “I’m going to see my doctor, get my tummy measured, listen to the heartbeat, and go home.” That model is done. Patients will look for practices that are accessible at convenient times and that can give them the personalized experience to make them feel well cared for and that offer them a long-term relationship.

One concern is that as more obstetric groups use laborists to do their deliveries at the hospital, I wonder whether we do a good job of forming that relationship on the front end, and when it comes to the delivery, will we drop the ball? The jury is out, but it’s worth watching.

Dr. Levy: How do we as obstetrician-gynecologists get patients to consider that we are providing reliable information? There is so much disinformation out there.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA: I echo the sentiments discussed and I’ll add that many women want care that is convenient, close to home, coordinated, and integrated—not fragmented. They want their providers and their office to anticipate and know who they are even before they arrive, to be prepared for the visit. And it’s not only care for them, but also care for their families. Women are the gatekeepers to the health care system. They want a health care system in place that will care not just for each member separately but also for the family as an integrated whole.

To answer your question, Barbara, we have all been overwhelmed with the amount of data coming at us, both providers and patients. Teaching providers how to synthesize and integrate the data and then present it to patients is quite a challenge. We have to instill this skill in our trainees, teach them how to absorb and present the data.

Consensus bodies can help in this regard, and ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) has led the way in providing guidance around the management of pregnancy in the setting of COVID-19. Another reliable site for my trainees is UpToDate, which is easy to access. If a scientific paper comes out today, it will be covered in UpToDate tomorrow. Patients need someone who can synthesize the data and give it to them in little pieces, and keep it current.

Dr. Levy: We need to be a reliable source not only for medical information but also for referral to resources in the community for families and for women.

Continue to: ObGyn services...

 

 

ObGyn services: Primary care or specialty?

Dr. Norwitz: That begs the question, who are we? Are we primary care providers or are we a subspecialty, or are we both?

Ms. Pearson: Women, particularly in their younger, middle reproductive years, see their ObGyn as a primary care provider. The way forward for the profession is to embrace the call that Barbara articulated, to know what other referral sources are available beyond other clinicians. We need to be aware of the social determinants of health—that there are times when the primary care provider needs to know the community well enough to know what is available that would make a difference for that person and her family.

Dr. Levy: Scott, how do you manage that?

Dr. Hayworth: As reimbursement models move rapidly toward value, practices that can undertake risk are in the best position to thrive; specialty providers relying solely on fee-for-service may well be unable to survive. The key for any ObGyn practice is to be of sufficient size and scope that it can manage the primary care for a panel of patients, the more numerous the better; being in charge of those dollars allows maximum control. ObGyns who subspecialize should seek to become members of larger groups, whether comprehensive women’s health practices or multispecialty groups like ours at CareMount Medical, that manage the spectrum of care for their patients.

Dr. Levy: Janice, fill us in on some of the structures that exist now for ObGyns that they may be able to participate in—payment structures like the Women’s Medical Home. Does UnitedHealth have anything like that?

Dr. Huckaby: Probably 3 or 4 exist now, but I agree that risk arrangements are perhaps a wave of the future. Right now, UnitedHealth has accountable care organizations (ACOs) that include ObGyns, a number of them in the Northeast. We also rolled out bundled payment programs.

Our hospital contracts have always had metrics around infection rates and elective deliveries before 39 weeks, and we will probably start seeing some of that put into the provider contracts as well.

There is a desire to move people into a risk-sharing model for payment, but part of the concern there is the infrastructure, because if you are going to manage risk, you need to have staff that can do care coordination. Care coordinators can ensure, for example, that people have transportation to their appointments, and thus address some of the social determinants in ways that historically have not been done in obstetrics.

The ACOs sometimes have given seed money for practices to hire additional staff to do those kinds of things, and that can help get practices started. Probably the people best positioned are in large multispecialty groups that can leverage case management and maybe support other specialties.

I do think we are going to see a move to risk in the future. Obstetrics has moved at a slower pace than we have seen in internal medicine and some other specialties.

Dr. Hayworth: The value model for reimbursement can only be managed via care coordination, maximizing efficacy and efficiency at every level for every patient. Fortunately for ObGyns, we are familiar with the value concept via bundling for obstetrical services covering prenatal to postpartum, including delivery. ObGyn practices need to prepare for a future in which insurers will pay for patient panels in which providers take on the risk for the entirety of care.

At CareMount Medical, we have embraced the value model as one of 40 Next Generation Medicare Accountable Care Organizations across the country. We’ve put in place the infrastructure, from front desk through back office, to optimize resource utilization. Our team approach includes both patient advocates and care coordinators who extend the capabilities of our physicians and ensure that our patients’ needs, including well care, are met comprehensively.

Dr. Huckaby: One area that we sometimes leave out, whether we are talking about payment or a patient-centered medical home, is integration with behavioral health. Anxiety and depression are fairly rampant, fairly underdiagnosed, and woefully undertreated. I hope that our ObGyn practices of the future—and maybe this is the broadening into primary care—will engage and take the lead in addressing some of those issues, because women suffer. We need to embrace the behavioral aspect of care for the whole person more than we have.

Continue to: Physician training issues...

 

 

Physician training issues

Dr. Levy: I could not agree more. We have trained physicians to do illness care, not wellness care, and to be physician and practice centered, not patient centered. While we train medical students in hospital settings and in acute care, there’s not much training in how to manage people or in the factors that determine whether someone is truly well, such as housing security and food security. We are not training physicians in nutrition or in mental health.

Errol, how do we help an ObGyn or women’s health trainee to prepare for the ideal world we are trying to create?

Dr. Norwitz: It’s a challenging question. I like to reference a remarkable piece by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker, in which he interviewed the CEO of the Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain, who in effect said that we’ve got it all wrong; there’s no health in health care.¹ We don’t manage health; we wait until people get sick and then we treat them. We have to put the health back into health care.

It has always been my passion to focus on preventative care. We need to reclaim our identity—I have never particularly liked the name “ObGyn,” the term “women’s health” may be more appropriate and help us focus on disease prevention—and we need to stand up for training programs that separate the O from the G.

Low-volume surgeons, who may do only 1 or 2 hysterectomies per year, can’t maintain their proficiency, and many don’t do enough cases to maintain their robotics privileges. I can foresee a time where labor and delivery units are like ICUs, where the people who work there do nothing but manage labor and perform deliveries using standardized bundles of practice. Such an approach will decrease variability in management and lead to improved outcomes.

We need to completely reframe how we train our pipeline providers to provide care in women’s health. It would be difficult, take a lot of effort, and there would be pushback, I suspect, but that’s where the field needs to go.

The ideal system redesign

Dr. Levy: Cindy, if you could start from scratch and design an ideal comprehensive system to better deliver care for women of all ages, what would that look like?

Ms. Pearson: I would design a system in which people at any life stage met with providers who were less trained in dealing with disease and more trained in the holistic approach to maintaining health. That might be a nurse practitioner or maybe a version of what Errol describes as a new way of training ObGyns. That’s the initial interaction, and the person could be with someone for decades and deepen the relationship in that wonderful way. It would also have an avenue for the times when disease needed to be treated or when more specialized care would be provided. And the financing would be worked out to support consistency.

Dr. Norwitz: We can learn from other countries. Singapore, with only 5.5 million people, has the best health care system in the world. They have a great model. Costa Rica and Cuba have completely redesigned their health care systems. You go through medical school in 2 or 3 years, and then you get embedded in the community. So you have doctors living in the community responsible for the health of their neighbors. They get to know people in the context in which they live and refer them on only when they need more than basic care. These countries have vastly superior outcome measures, and they spend less money on health care.

Dr. Levy: My dream, as we reinvent things, is that we could create a comprehensive Women’s Medical Home where there’s a hub and an opportunity to be centered on patients so they could reach us when needed.

Ideally we could create a structure with a central contact person—a nurse practi­tioner, a midwife, someone in family medicine or internal medicine—someone focused on women’s health who has researched how inequities apply to women and women’s health and the areas where research doesn’t necessarily apply to women as just “smaller men.” Then we would have the hub, and the spokes—those would be mental health care providers, surgeons, and people to provide additional services when needed.

The only way I can figure how to make that work from a payment perspective is with a prospective payment system, a per member, per month capitated payment structure. That way, ancillary and other services would be available, and overtesting and such would be disincentivized.

Continue to: The question of payment...

 

 

The question of payment

Dr. Hayworth: I agree. For every practice, the two key considerations in addressing the challenges of capitation are, first, that the team approach is essential, and, second, that providers appreciate that everything they do for their patients is reimbursed in a global payment.

At CareMount Medical, our team system embeds advanced practice professionals in our primary care and ObGyn offices. Everyone—physicians, midwives, nurse practi­tioners—practices at the top of their license. Our care coordinators ensure that our patients’ health journeys are optimized from well care through specialized needs, engaging every member of the care team effectively.

To optimize our success in a risk model, we recognize that tasks and services that went without direct reimbursement in a fee-for-service arrangement are integral to producing the best outcomes for our patients. We examine everything we do from the perspective of how to provide the most advanced care in the most efficient manner. For example, we drive toward moving procedures from the hospital to the outpatient setting, and from the ambulatory surgical center to the office. This allows us maximal control of both quality and cost, with savings benefiting our group as well as the payers with whom we have contracts.

Dr. Norwitz: I have been fortunate to have trained and worked in 5 different countries on 3 continents. There’s no question there are better health care systems out there. Some form of capitation is needed, whether it’s value-based care or a risk-sharing arrangement. But how do you do it without a single payer? I don’t think you can, but I’m ready to listen.

Dr. Hayworth: You can have capitation without a single payer; in fact, it’s far better to have many payers compete to offer the greatest flexibility to both patients and providers. CareMount Medical has 650,000 patients who rely on us to provide their care with the utmost quality and affordability. In our Next Generation ACO, our Medicare patients have the benefit of care coordination in a team approach that saves our government money, and we are incentivized to do our best because some of those savings return to us.

The needs of Medicare patients, of course, are different from those in other age groups, and our contracts with other payers will reflect that distinction. There’s no inherent reason why capitation has to equal “single payer.” The benefits of the risk model are magnified by incentivizing all participants to provide maximum value.

Continue to: Ms. Pearson...

Ms. Pearson: I am going to comment on capitated care because I think educated consumers are well aware of the benefits of moving away from fee-for-service and bringing in some more sensible system. However, given the historical racial inequities and injustices, and lack of access and disparate treatment, capitation raises fear in the hearts of people whose communities have not gotten the care that they need.

The answer is not to avoid capitation, but to find a way for the profession to be seen more visibly as reflecting who they serve, and we know we can’t change the profession’s racial makeup overnight. That’s a generation-long effort.

Dr. Levy: For capitation to work, there has to be value, you have to meet the quality metrics. Having served on the National Quality Forum on multiple different committees, I am convinced that we measure what is easy to measure, and we are not measuring what really matters to people. My thought is to embrace the communities that have been underserved to help us design the metrics for a capitated system that is meaningful to the people that we serve.

Ms. Pearson: On the West Coast, some people are leading efforts to create patient-centered metrics for respectful maternity care led by Black, indigenous, and people of color communities that are validated with solid research tools.

Algorithms for care

Dr. Norwitz: Artificial intelligence (AI) may have a role to play. For example, I think we do a terrible job of caring for women in the postpartum period. We focus almost all of our care in the antepartum period and not postpartum. I am working with a group with a finance and banking background to try and risk-adjust patients in the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum period. We are developing algorithms using AI and deep learning technologies to risk-stratify patients and say, “This patient is low risk so can safely get obstetric care with a family medicine doctor or midwife. That patient requires consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist or a general internist,” and so on.

Ms. Pearson: As policy advocates, we are trying to get Medicaid postpartum coverage expanded to 12 months. Too many women fall into a coverage gap shortly after delivery; continued coverage would help improve postpartum outcomes. I am curious how an algorithm might help take better care of women postpartum.

Dr. Norwitz: Postpartum care is one of the greatest areas of need. I love the Dutch model. In the Netherlands, when a woman goes home after giving birth, a designated nurse comes home with her, teaches her how to breastfeed and how to bathe the baby, and assists with routine activities such as cooking and washing. And the nurse remains engaged for a prolonged period of time, paid for by the government. There are also other social welfare packages, such as a full 4-year or more maternity leave.

The solution is part political and part medical. We need to rethink our care model, and I don’t think we provide enough postpartum care.

Continue to: Dr. Hayworth...

Dr. Hayworth: Errol made an excellent point about AI. There is a product that’s being used in Europe and in some other parts of the world that can provide 85% of care through an algorithm without a patient even having to speak to a nurse or doctor. The company that offers the product claims a high level of patient satisfaction and a very low error rate.

We are a long way from the point at which—and I don’t anticipate that we’ll ever get there—AI fully replaces human providers, but there’s enormous and growing potential for data aggregation and machine learning to enhance, exponentially, the capabilities and capacity of care teams.

The most immediate applications for AI in the United States are in diagnostics, pathology, and the mapping of protocols for patients with cancer who will benefit from access to investigational interventions and clinical trials. As we gain experience in those areas, acceptance and confidence will lead steadily to broader deployment of AI, enhancing the quality of care and the efficiency of delivery and saving costs.

Dr. Norwitz: AI is a tool to assist providers. It is not going to replace us, which is the fear.

Ms. Pearson: From the consumer perspective, again, there is concern that if not enough data are available from Black, indigenous, and people of color, the levels won’t start out in a good place. The criticism over mammography randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has existed for a long time. The big trials that got all the way out to mortality did not include enough women of color; and so women of color rightly say, “Why should we believe these guidelines developed on results of the RCTs?” My point is that because of historical inequity, logical solutions such as algorithms do not always work for communities that were previously excluded or mistreated.

Dr. Levy: Your point is incredibly well taken. That means that those of us researching and working with AI need to ensure that the data going in are representative, that we are not embedding implicit biases into the AI algorithms, which clearly has sometimes already happened. We have to be careful to embrace input from multiple sources that we have not thought of before.

As we look at an algorithm for managing a postpartum patient or a postoperative patient, have we thought about how she’s managing her children at home after she goes home? What else is happening in her life? How can we impact her recovery in a positive way? We need to hear the voices of the people that we are trying to serve as we develop those algorithms.

Perspectives on future health care delivery

Dr. Levy: To summarize so far, we are thinking about a Woman’s Medical Home, a capitated model of comprehensive care for women that includes mental health, social determinants, and home care. There are different models, but a payment structure where we would have the capital to invest in community services and in things that we think may make a difference.

Dr. Norwitz: I think the health care system of the future is not going to be based in large academic medical centers. It’s going to be in community hospitals close to home. It’s going to be in the home. And it will be provided by different types of practitioners, whose performances are tracked using more appropriate outcome metrics.

Dr. Levy: I also think we will have community health workers. While we haven’t talked about rural health and access to care, there are some structural things we can do to reach rural communities with really excellent care, such as training community health workers and using telemedicine. It does require thinking through a different payment structure, though, because there really isn’t money in the system to do that currently, at least to my knowledge.

Janice, do we have enough motivation to take care of women? Women are so underrepresented when we look at care models.

Dr. Huckaby: I do think there is hope, but it will truly take a village. While CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has its innovation center in the Medicaid space, it’s almost like we have to have the payers, the government, the specialty societies, and so on say that we need to do something better. I mention the government because it is not only a payer but also a regulator. They can help create some of these things.

There are opportunities with payers to say, “Let’s move to this kind of model for that.” But still, we are implementing change but on a fairly minor scale.

We could have the people who care about issues, help deliver the care, pay the bills, and so on say, “This is what we want to do,” and then we could pilot them. It may be one type of pilot in a rural area and one type of pilot in an urban area, because they are going to differ, and do it that way and then scale it.

Telemedicine, or telehealth, is part of creating access. Even some nontraditional settings, such as retail store clinics, may work.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: Cindy, is there any last thing you wanted to comment on?

Ms. Pearson: All the changes we have talked about require public policy change. Physicians become physicians to take care of people, not because they want to be policy wonks like us. We love policy because we see how it can benefit. To our readers I say be part of making this generational change in the profession and women’s health care, get involved in policy, because these things can’t happen without the policy changes.

Dr. Norwitz: That is so important. In most developed countries around the world, you get trained in medical school, the cost of training is subsidized, and in return you owe 2 years of service. In this country, if we subsidized the training of doctors and in return they owed us 2 years of primary care service based in the community or in an underserved area, they would get valuable clinical experience and wouldn’t have so many loans to pay back. I think it is a policy that could work and could profoundly change the health care landscape in time.

Dr. Levy: And it would save a great deal of money. The reality is that if we subsidize medical education and in return required service in a national public health service, we would move providers out into rural areas. That would to some extent solve our rural problem. We would train people to think about diagnostic options when the resources are not unlimited, so that they will perhaps not order quite so many tests.

That policy change would foundationally allow for more minority students to become physicians and health care workers. If there were one thing we could do to begin to drive this change, that would be it.

Who would have thought a disruptive pandemic could affect the way people receive care, in bad and good ways? Some carriers, for example, are now paying for telehealth visits who previously did not.

Final thoughts

Dr. Hayworth: It’s an exciting time to be in medicine and women’s health: We are ushering in a new era in which we can fulfill the vision of comprehensive care, patient-focused and seamlessly delivered by teams whose capabilities are optimized by ever-improving technology. ObGyns, with our foundation in the continuum of care, have the experience and the sensibilities to adapt to the challenges of the value model, in which our success will depend on fully embracing our role as primary care providers.

Dr. Levy: Circling back to the beginning of our discussion, we talked about relationships, and developing deep relationships with patients is the internal reward and the piece that prevents us from burnout. It makes you feel good at the end of the day—or sometimes bad at the end of the day when something didn’t go well. Restructuring the system in a way that gets us back to personalized relationship-centered care will benefit ObGyns and our patients.

I thank you all for participating in this thoughtful discussion. ●

Recently, OBG Management convened an expert panel of clinicians and thought leaders to discuss the changes needed in health care delivery—and in health care policy—that have risen to the forefront of consciousness as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Here is that stimulating exchange moderated by Editorial Board member Dr. Barbara Levy.

Barbara Levy, MD: The disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic has given us an opportunity to consider how we would recraft the delivery of health care for women if we could. My goal for this discussion is to talk about that and see if we can incentivize people to make changes.

Cindy, what are women looking for in health care that they are not getting now?

What women want in health care

Cynthia A. Pearson: Women, like men, want a sense of assurance that health care can be provided in a safe way, and that can’t be given completely right now.

Aside from that, women want a personal connection, ideally with the same provider. Many women are embracing telehealth, which came about because of this disruptive time, and that has potential that we can possibly mobilize around. One thing women don’t always find is consistency and contact, and they would like that.

Scott D. Hayworth, MD: Women want to be listened to, and they want their doctors to take a holistic and individualized approach to their care. In-person visits are the ideal setting for this, but during the pandemic we have had to adapt to new modalities for delivering care: government regulations restricting services, and the necessity to limit the flow of patients into offices, has meant that we have had to rely on remote visits. CareMount Medical has been in the forefront of telehealth with our “Virtual Visit” technology, so we were well prepared, and our patients have embraced this truly vital option. We’ve ramped up capabilities significantly to deal with the surge in volume.

While our practice has been able to provide consistent and convenient access to care, this isn’t the case in all areas of the country. Even before the pandemic, the cost of malpractice insurance has led to shortages of ObGyns; this deficit has been compounded by the closing of hospitals due to restrictions on services imposed to try to stem the spread of COVID-19. The affordability of care has also been jeopardized by job losses and therefore of employer-provided insurance, following months of lockdowns.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: To balance that long-term relationship with access and cost, clearly we are not delivering what is needed. Janice, at UnitedHealth you have experimented with some products and some different ways of delivering care. What are beneficiaries looking for?

Janice Huckaby, MD: There is a real thirst for digital content—everybody consults with Dr. Google. They are looking for reliable sources of clinical content. Ideally, that comes from their physician, but people access it in other ways as well.

I agree that women desire a personalized relationship. That is why we are seeing more communities of women, such as virtual pregnancy support groups, that have cropped up in the age of COVID-19. Women are not content with the idea of “I’m going to see my doctor, get my tummy measured, listen to the heartbeat, and go home.” That model is done. Patients will look for practices that are accessible at convenient times and that can give them the personalized experience to make them feel well cared for and that offer them a long-term relationship.

One concern is that as more obstetric groups use laborists to do their deliveries at the hospital, I wonder whether we do a good job of forming that relationship on the front end, and when it comes to the delivery, will we drop the ball? The jury is out, but it’s worth watching.

Dr. Levy: How do we as obstetrician-gynecologists get patients to consider that we are providing reliable information? There is so much disinformation out there.

Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD, MBA: I echo the sentiments discussed and I’ll add that many women want care that is convenient, close to home, coordinated, and integrated—not fragmented. They want their providers and their office to anticipate and know who they are even before they arrive, to be prepared for the visit. And it’s not only care for them, but also care for their families. Women are the gatekeepers to the health care system. They want a health care system in place that will care not just for each member separately but also for the family as an integrated whole.

To answer your question, Barbara, we have all been overwhelmed with the amount of data coming at us, both providers and patients. Teaching providers how to synthesize and integrate the data and then present it to patients is quite a challenge. We have to instill this skill in our trainees, teach them how to absorb and present the data.

Consensus bodies can help in this regard, and ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) has led the way in providing guidance around the management of pregnancy in the setting of COVID-19. Another reliable site for my trainees is UpToDate, which is easy to access. If a scientific paper comes out today, it will be covered in UpToDate tomorrow. Patients need someone who can synthesize the data and give it to them in little pieces, and keep it current.

Dr. Levy: We need to be a reliable source not only for medical information but also for referral to resources in the community for families and for women.

Continue to: ObGyn services...

 

 

ObGyn services: Primary care or specialty?

Dr. Norwitz: That begs the question, who are we? Are we primary care providers or are we a subspecialty, or are we both?

Ms. Pearson: Women, particularly in their younger, middle reproductive years, see their ObGyn as a primary care provider. The way forward for the profession is to embrace the call that Barbara articulated, to know what other referral sources are available beyond other clinicians. We need to be aware of the social determinants of health—that there are times when the primary care provider needs to know the community well enough to know what is available that would make a difference for that person and her family.

Dr. Levy: Scott, how do you manage that?

Dr. Hayworth: As reimbursement models move rapidly toward value, practices that can undertake risk are in the best position to thrive; specialty providers relying solely on fee-for-service may well be unable to survive. The key for any ObGyn practice is to be of sufficient size and scope that it can manage the primary care for a panel of patients, the more numerous the better; being in charge of those dollars allows maximum control. ObGyns who subspecialize should seek to become members of larger groups, whether comprehensive women’s health practices or multispecialty groups like ours at CareMount Medical, that manage the spectrum of care for their patients.

Dr. Levy: Janice, fill us in on some of the structures that exist now for ObGyns that they may be able to participate in—payment structures like the Women’s Medical Home. Does UnitedHealth have anything like that?

Dr. Huckaby: Probably 3 or 4 exist now, but I agree that risk arrangements are perhaps a wave of the future. Right now, UnitedHealth has accountable care organizations (ACOs) that include ObGyns, a number of them in the Northeast. We also rolled out bundled payment programs.

Our hospital contracts have always had metrics around infection rates and elective deliveries before 39 weeks, and we will probably start seeing some of that put into the provider contracts as well.

There is a desire to move people into a risk-sharing model for payment, but part of the concern there is the infrastructure, because if you are going to manage risk, you need to have staff that can do care coordination. Care coordinators can ensure, for example, that people have transportation to their appointments, and thus address some of the social determinants in ways that historically have not been done in obstetrics.

The ACOs sometimes have given seed money for practices to hire additional staff to do those kinds of things, and that can help get practices started. Probably the people best positioned are in large multispecialty groups that can leverage case management and maybe support other specialties.

I do think we are going to see a move to risk in the future. Obstetrics has moved at a slower pace than we have seen in internal medicine and some other specialties.

Dr. Hayworth: The value model for reimbursement can only be managed via care coordination, maximizing efficacy and efficiency at every level for every patient. Fortunately for ObGyns, we are familiar with the value concept via bundling for obstetrical services covering prenatal to postpartum, including delivery. ObGyn practices need to prepare for a future in which insurers will pay for patient panels in which providers take on the risk for the entirety of care.

At CareMount Medical, we have embraced the value model as one of 40 Next Generation Medicare Accountable Care Organizations across the country. We’ve put in place the infrastructure, from front desk through back office, to optimize resource utilization. Our team approach includes both patient advocates and care coordinators who extend the capabilities of our physicians and ensure that our patients’ needs, including well care, are met comprehensively.

Dr. Huckaby: One area that we sometimes leave out, whether we are talking about payment or a patient-centered medical home, is integration with behavioral health. Anxiety and depression are fairly rampant, fairly underdiagnosed, and woefully undertreated. I hope that our ObGyn practices of the future—and maybe this is the broadening into primary care—will engage and take the lead in addressing some of those issues, because women suffer. We need to embrace the behavioral aspect of care for the whole person more than we have.

Continue to: Physician training issues...

 

 

Physician training issues

Dr. Levy: I could not agree more. We have trained physicians to do illness care, not wellness care, and to be physician and practice centered, not patient centered. While we train medical students in hospital settings and in acute care, there’s not much training in how to manage people or in the factors that determine whether someone is truly well, such as housing security and food security. We are not training physicians in nutrition or in mental health.

Errol, how do we help an ObGyn or women’s health trainee to prepare for the ideal world we are trying to create?

Dr. Norwitz: It’s a challenging question. I like to reference a remarkable piece by Atul Gawande in The New Yorker, in which he interviewed the CEO of the Cheesecake Factory restaurant chain, who in effect said that we’ve got it all wrong; there’s no health in health care.¹ We don’t manage health; we wait until people get sick and then we treat them. We have to put the health back into health care.

It has always been my passion to focus on preventative care. We need to reclaim our identity—I have never particularly liked the name “ObGyn,” the term “women’s health” may be more appropriate and help us focus on disease prevention—and we need to stand up for training programs that separate the O from the G.

Low-volume surgeons, who may do only 1 or 2 hysterectomies per year, can’t maintain their proficiency, and many don’t do enough cases to maintain their robotics privileges. I can foresee a time where labor and delivery units are like ICUs, where the people who work there do nothing but manage labor and perform deliveries using standardized bundles of practice. Such an approach will decrease variability in management and lead to improved outcomes.

We need to completely reframe how we train our pipeline providers to provide care in women’s health. It would be difficult, take a lot of effort, and there would be pushback, I suspect, but that’s where the field needs to go.

The ideal system redesign

Dr. Levy: Cindy, if you could start from scratch and design an ideal comprehensive system to better deliver care for women of all ages, what would that look like?

Ms. Pearson: I would design a system in which people at any life stage met with providers who were less trained in dealing with disease and more trained in the holistic approach to maintaining health. That might be a nurse practitioner or maybe a version of what Errol describes as a new way of training ObGyns. That’s the initial interaction, and the person could be with someone for decades and deepen the relationship in that wonderful way. It would also have an avenue for the times when disease needed to be treated or when more specialized care would be provided. And the financing would be worked out to support consistency.

Dr. Norwitz: We can learn from other countries. Singapore, with only 5.5 million people, has the best health care system in the world. They have a great model. Costa Rica and Cuba have completely redesigned their health care systems. You go through medical school in 2 or 3 years, and then you get embedded in the community. So you have doctors living in the community responsible for the health of their neighbors. They get to know people in the context in which they live and refer them on only when they need more than basic care. These countries have vastly superior outcome measures, and they spend less money on health care.

Dr. Levy: My dream, as we reinvent things, is that we could create a comprehensive Women’s Medical Home where there’s a hub and an opportunity to be centered on patients so they could reach us when needed.

Ideally we could create a structure with a central contact person—a nurse practi­tioner, a midwife, someone in family medicine or internal medicine—someone focused on women’s health who has researched how inequities apply to women and women’s health and the areas where research doesn’t necessarily apply to women as just “smaller men.” Then we would have the hub, and the spokes—those would be mental health care providers, surgeons, and people to provide additional services when needed.

The only way I can figure how to make that work from a payment perspective is with a prospective payment system, a per member, per month capitated payment structure. That way, ancillary and other services would be available, and overtesting and such would be disincentivized.

Continue to: The question of payment...

 

 

The question of payment

Dr. Hayworth: I agree. For every practice, the two key considerations in addressing the challenges of capitation are, first, that the team approach is essential, and, second, that providers appreciate that everything they do for their patients is reimbursed in a global payment.

At CareMount Medical, our team system embeds advanced practice professionals in our primary care and ObGyn offices. Everyone—physicians, midwives, nurse practi­tioners—practices at the top of their license. Our care coordinators ensure that our patients’ health journeys are optimized from well care through specialized needs, engaging every member of the care team effectively.

To optimize our success in a risk model, we recognize that tasks and services that went without direct reimbursement in a fee-for-service arrangement are integral to producing the best outcomes for our patients. We examine everything we do from the perspective of how to provide the most advanced care in the most efficient manner. For example, we drive toward moving procedures from the hospital to the outpatient setting, and from the ambulatory surgical center to the office. This allows us maximal control of both quality and cost, with savings benefiting our group as well as the payers with whom we have contracts.

Dr. Norwitz: I have been fortunate to have trained and worked in 5 different countries on 3 continents. There’s no question there are better health care systems out there. Some form of capitation is needed, whether it’s value-based care or a risk-sharing arrangement. But how do you do it without a single payer? I don’t think you can, but I’m ready to listen.

Dr. Hayworth: You can have capitation without a single payer; in fact, it’s far better to have many payers compete to offer the greatest flexibility to both patients and providers. CareMount Medical has 650,000 patients who rely on us to provide their care with the utmost quality and affordability. In our Next Generation ACO, our Medicare patients have the benefit of care coordination in a team approach that saves our government money, and we are incentivized to do our best because some of those savings return to us.

The needs of Medicare patients, of course, are different from those in other age groups, and our contracts with other payers will reflect that distinction. There’s no inherent reason why capitation has to equal “single payer.” The benefits of the risk model are magnified by incentivizing all participants to provide maximum value.

Continue to: Ms. Pearson...

Ms. Pearson: I am going to comment on capitated care because I think educated consumers are well aware of the benefits of moving away from fee-for-service and bringing in some more sensible system. However, given the historical racial inequities and injustices, and lack of access and disparate treatment, capitation raises fear in the hearts of people whose communities have not gotten the care that they need.

The answer is not to avoid capitation, but to find a way for the profession to be seen more visibly as reflecting who they serve, and we know we can’t change the profession’s racial makeup overnight. That’s a generation-long effort.

Dr. Levy: For capitation to work, there has to be value, you have to meet the quality metrics. Having served on the National Quality Forum on multiple different committees, I am convinced that we measure what is easy to measure, and we are not measuring what really matters to people. My thought is to embrace the communities that have been underserved to help us design the metrics for a capitated system that is meaningful to the people that we serve.

Ms. Pearson: On the West Coast, some people are leading efforts to create patient-centered metrics for respectful maternity care led by Black, indigenous, and people of color communities that are validated with solid research tools.

Algorithms for care

Dr. Norwitz: Artificial intelligence (AI) may have a role to play. For example, I think we do a terrible job of caring for women in the postpartum period. We focus almost all of our care in the antepartum period and not postpartum. I am working with a group with a finance and banking background to try and risk-adjust patients in the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum period. We are developing algorithms using AI and deep learning technologies to risk-stratify patients and say, “This patient is low risk so can safely get obstetric care with a family medicine doctor or midwife. That patient requires consultation with a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist or a general internist,” and so on.

Ms. Pearson: As policy advocates, we are trying to get Medicaid postpartum coverage expanded to 12 months. Too many women fall into a coverage gap shortly after delivery; continued coverage would help improve postpartum outcomes. I am curious how an algorithm might help take better care of women postpartum.

Dr. Norwitz: Postpartum care is one of the greatest areas of need. I love the Dutch model. In the Netherlands, when a woman goes home after giving birth, a designated nurse comes home with her, teaches her how to breastfeed and how to bathe the baby, and assists with routine activities such as cooking and washing. And the nurse remains engaged for a prolonged period of time, paid for by the government. There are also other social welfare packages, such as a full 4-year or more maternity leave.

The solution is part political and part medical. We need to rethink our care model, and I don’t think we provide enough postpartum care.

Continue to: Dr. Hayworth...

Dr. Hayworth: Errol made an excellent point about AI. There is a product that’s being used in Europe and in some other parts of the world that can provide 85% of care through an algorithm without a patient even having to speak to a nurse or doctor. The company that offers the product claims a high level of patient satisfaction and a very low error rate.

We are a long way from the point at which—and I don’t anticipate that we’ll ever get there—AI fully replaces human providers, but there’s enormous and growing potential for data aggregation and machine learning to enhance, exponentially, the capabilities and capacity of care teams.

The most immediate applications for AI in the United States are in diagnostics, pathology, and the mapping of protocols for patients with cancer who will benefit from access to investigational interventions and clinical trials. As we gain experience in those areas, acceptance and confidence will lead steadily to broader deployment of AI, enhancing the quality of care and the efficiency of delivery and saving costs.

Dr. Norwitz: AI is a tool to assist providers. It is not going to replace us, which is the fear.

Ms. Pearson: From the consumer perspective, again, there is concern that if not enough data are available from Black, indigenous, and people of color, the levels won’t start out in a good place. The criticism over mammography randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has existed for a long time. The big trials that got all the way out to mortality did not include enough women of color; and so women of color rightly say, “Why should we believe these guidelines developed on results of the RCTs?” My point is that because of historical inequity, logical solutions such as algorithms do not always work for communities that were previously excluded or mistreated.

Dr. Levy: Your point is incredibly well taken. That means that those of us researching and working with AI need to ensure that the data going in are representative, that we are not embedding implicit biases into the AI algorithms, which clearly has sometimes already happened. We have to be careful to embrace input from multiple sources that we have not thought of before.

As we look at an algorithm for managing a postpartum patient or a postoperative patient, have we thought about how she’s managing her children at home after she goes home? What else is happening in her life? How can we impact her recovery in a positive way? We need to hear the voices of the people that we are trying to serve as we develop those algorithms.

Perspectives on future health care delivery

Dr. Levy: To summarize so far, we are thinking about a Woman’s Medical Home, a capitated model of comprehensive care for women that includes mental health, social determinants, and home care. There are different models, but a payment structure where we would have the capital to invest in community services and in things that we think may make a difference.

Dr. Norwitz: I think the health care system of the future is not going to be based in large academic medical centers. It’s going to be in community hospitals close to home. It’s going to be in the home. And it will be provided by different types of practitioners, whose performances are tracked using more appropriate outcome metrics.

Dr. Levy: I also think we will have community health workers. While we haven’t talked about rural health and access to care, there are some structural things we can do to reach rural communities with really excellent care, such as training community health workers and using telemedicine. It does require thinking through a different payment structure, though, because there really isn’t money in the system to do that currently, at least to my knowledge.

Janice, do we have enough motivation to take care of women? Women are so underrepresented when we look at care models.

Dr. Huckaby: I do think there is hope, but it will truly take a village. While CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) has its innovation center in the Medicaid space, it’s almost like we have to have the payers, the government, the specialty societies, and so on say that we need to do something better. I mention the government because it is not only a payer but also a regulator. They can help create some of these things.

There are opportunities with payers to say, “Let’s move to this kind of model for that.” But still, we are implementing change but on a fairly minor scale.

We could have the people who care about issues, help deliver the care, pay the bills, and so on say, “This is what we want to do,” and then we could pilot them. It may be one type of pilot in a rural area and one type of pilot in an urban area, because they are going to differ, and do it that way and then scale it.

Telemedicine, or telehealth, is part of creating access. Even some nontraditional settings, such as retail store clinics, may work.

Continue to: Dr. Levy...

Dr. Levy: Cindy, is there any last thing you wanted to comment on?

Ms. Pearson: All the changes we have talked about require public policy change. Physicians become physicians to take care of people, not because they want to be policy wonks like us. We love policy because we see how it can benefit. To our readers I say be part of making this generational change in the profession and women’s health care, get involved in policy, because these things can’t happen without the policy changes.

Dr. Norwitz: That is so important. In most developed countries around the world, you get trained in medical school, the cost of training is subsidized, and in return you owe 2 years of service. In this country, if we subsidized the training of doctors and in return they owed us 2 years of primary care service based in the community or in an underserved area, they would get valuable clinical experience and wouldn’t have so many loans to pay back. I think it is a policy that could work and could profoundly change the health care landscape in time.

Dr. Levy: And it would save a great deal of money. The reality is that if we subsidize medical education and in return required service in a national public health service, we would move providers out into rural areas. That would to some extent solve our rural problem. We would train people to think about diagnostic options when the resources are not unlimited, so that they will perhaps not order quite so many tests.

That policy change would foundationally allow for more minority students to become physicians and health care workers. If there were one thing we could do to begin to drive this change, that would be it.

Who would have thought a disruptive pandemic could affect the way people receive care, in bad and good ways? Some carriers, for example, are now paying for telehealth visits who previously did not.

Final thoughts

Dr. Hayworth: It’s an exciting time to be in medicine and women’s health: We are ushering in a new era in which we can fulfill the vision of comprehensive care, patient-focused and seamlessly delivered by teams whose capabilities are optimized by ever-improving technology. ObGyns, with our foundation in the continuum of care, have the experience and the sensibilities to adapt to the challenges of the value model, in which our success will depend on fully embracing our role as primary care providers.

Dr. Levy: Circling back to the beginning of our discussion, we talked about relationships, and developing deep relationships with patients is the internal reward and the piece that prevents us from burnout. It makes you feel good at the end of the day—or sometimes bad at the end of the day when something didn’t go well. Restructuring the system in a way that gets us back to personalized relationship-centered care will benefit ObGyns and our patients.

I thank you all for participating in this thoughtful discussion. ●

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

Most residents who were asked whether their training prepared them for COVID-19 in a Medscape survey said it had not or they weren’t sure.

Whereas 40% said they felt prepared, 30% said they did not feel prepared and 31% answered they were unsure. (Numbers were rounded, so some answers pushed above 100%.)

One quarter have $300,000 or more in student debt

The Medscape Residents Salary & Debt Report 2020, with data collected April 3 to June 1, found that nearly one in four residents (24%) had medical school debt of more than $300,000. Half (49%) had more than $200,000.

The data include answers from 1,659 U.S. medical residents.

For the sixth straight year, female residents were more satisfied with their pay than were their male colleagues. This year the satisfaction gap was 45% female compared with 42% male. That imbalance came despite their making nearly the same pay overall ($63,700 for men and $63,000 for women).

Among practicing physicians, the pay gap is much wider: Men make 25% more in primary care and 31% more in specialties.

More than a third of residents (34%) said they felt residents should make 26%-50% more than they do. Ten percent thought they should earn 76%-100% more.

For those not satisfied with pay, the top reasons were feeling the pay was too low for the hours worked (81%) or too low compared with other medical staff, such as physician assistants (PAs) or nurses (77% chose that answer).

As for hours worked, 31% of residents reported they spend more than 60 hours/week seeing patients.

The top-paying specialties, averaging $69,500, were allergy and immunology, hematology, plastic surgery, aesthetic medicine, rheumatology, and specialized surgery. The lowest paid were family medicine residents at $58,500.

In primary care, overall, most residents said they planned to specialize. Only 47% planned to continue to work in primary care. Male residents were much more likely to say they will subspecialize than were their female colleagues (52% vs. 35%).

More than 90% of residents say future pay has influenced their choice of specialty, though more men than women felt that way (93% vs. 86%).

Good relationships with others

Overall, residents reported good relationships with attending physicians and nurses.

Most (88%) said they had good or very good relationships with attending physicians, 10% said the relationships were fair, and 2% said they were poor.

In addition, 89% of residents said the amount of supervision was appropriate, 4% said there was too much, and 7% said there was too little.

Relationships with nurses/PAs were slightly less positive overall: Eighty-two percent reported good or very good relationships with nurses/PAs, 15% said those relationships were fair, and 3% said they were poor.

One respondent said: “Our relationships could be better, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with COVID-19, so emotions are heightened.”

Another said: “It takes time to earn the respect from nurses.”

Seventy-seven percent said they were satisfied with their learning experience overall, 12% were neutral on the question, and 11% said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

Work-life balance is the top concern

Work-life balance continues to be the top concern for residents. More than one-quarter (27%) in residency years 1 through 4 listed that as the top concern, and even more (32%) of those in years 5 through 8 agreed.

That was followed by demands on time and fear of failure or making a serious mistake.

The survey indicates that benefit packages for residents have stayed much the same over the past 2 years with health insurance and paid time off for sick leave, vacation, and personal time most commonly reported at 89% and 87%, respectively.

Much less common were benefits including commuter assistance (parking, public transportation) at 24%, housing allowance (8%), and child care (4%).

The vast majority of residents reported doing scut work (unskilled tasks): More than half (54%) reported doing 1-10 hours/week and 22% did 11-20 hours/week. Regardless of the number of hours, however, 62% said the time spent performing these tasks was appropriate.
 

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

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

The week of March 13, Heather Nye, MD, PhD, SFHM, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, got word that schools were closing because of COVID-19.

“My first thought was, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ ” she said. That was the start of a series of reactions that included denial and bargaining and, finally, some semblance of acceptance.

In a session at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine, she and David J. Alfandre, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at New York University Langone, described the complicated logistics and emotional and psychological strain that has come from working during a time of such great health care need while balancing home responsibilities and parenting.

At the time schools closed, Dr. Alfandre said, he was busy with clinical work while his wife’s work as an academic psychiatrist, including research activities, stopped for a time, allowing her to manage many of the family duties. Ever since her work picked back up, though, it’s been a juggling act.

“Our roles were dynamic and changing, sometimes week to week,” he said. “It was quite a shock to the system.”

Well before the pandemic struck, Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre had been scheduled to talk during the annual conference about work-parenting challenges. The pandemic has further underscored those challenges, they said. The session, they insisted, was meant as a storytelling opportunity to humanize hospitalists’ experience as they straddle work and family, not to offer clear solutions, although they did make suggestions in that vein.

Child care and odd hours always have been a challenge for hospitalists, they said, and for those in academia, any “wiggle room” in the schedule is often taken up by education, administration, and research projects.

“And then, of course, there are those ever-important baseball games and ballet recitals and any number of school-related activities to help support your kids,” Dr. Nye said.

COVID-19 has brought a new degree of strain, she said. There is the concern that hospitalists’ very work brings a higher infection risk to their children. Extra work responsibilities have brought on guilt about perhaps not doing a well enough job helping their children with schoolwork “without having any definition of what ‘well enough’ actually looks like.” At the same time, she said, she’s felt “incredibly grateful to have a stable job.

“There is this spectrum of guilt and gratitude that is constant – it’s an undulating, never-stopping pendulum,” she said.

Dr. Alfandre noted that it was a “tremendously proud moment” to have people cheering for his colleagues and him at shift change in New York. Still, after several days off, he “felt guilty that I wasn’t in the hospital.”

Dr. Nye observed that, while working from home on nonclinical work, “recognizing how little I got done was a big surprise,” and she had to “grow comfortable with that” and learn to live with the uncertainty about when that was going to change.

Both physicians described the emotional toll of worrying about their children if they have to continue distance learning.

At work, her center seems to be in a constant state of instability – they’re either dealing with a surge or a reopening.

“It just goes on and on and on and on,” she said. “I find it overwhelming.”

Dr. Alfandre said that a shared Google calendar for his wife and him – with appointments, work obligations, children’s doctor’s appointments, recitals – has been helpful, removing the strain of having to remind each other.

“It’s really about cooperation with your partner,” he said. “I really think this is the most important aspect.”

He said that there are skills used at work that hospitalists can use at home – such as not getting upset with a child for crying about a spilled drink – in the same way that a physician wouldn’t get upset with a patient concerned about a test.

“We empathize with our patients, and we empathize with our kids and what their experience is,” he said. Similarly, seeing family members crowd around a smartphone video call to check in with a COVID-19 patient can be a helpful reminder to appreciate going home to family at the end of the day.

When her children get upset that she has to go in to work, Dr. Nye said, it has been helpful to explain that her many patients are suffering and scared and need her help.

“I feel like sharing that part of our job to our kids helps them understand that there are very, very big problems out there – that they don’t have to know too much about and be frightened about – but [that knowledge] just gives them a little perspective.”

Dr. Nye and Dr. Alfandre said they had no financial conflicts of interest.

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

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

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

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

Less than a year ago, I wrote a column on retirement strategies; but that was before COVID-19 took down the economy, putting millions out of work and shuttering many of our offices. Add extraordinary racial tensions and an election year like no other, and 2020 has generated fear and uncertainty on an unprecedented level.

Not surprisingly, my e-mail has been dominated for months by questions about the short- and long-term financial consequences of this annus horribilis on our practices and retirement plans. Most physicians have felt the downturn acutely, of course. Revenues have declined, non-COVID-19-related hospital visits plunged, and only recently have we seen hospitals resuming elective procedures. As I write this, my practice is approaching its prepandemic volume; but many patients have been avoiding hospitals and doctors’ offices for fear of COVID-19 exposure. With no real end in sight, who can say when this trend will finally correct itself?

Long term, the outlook is not nearly so grim. I have always written that downturns – even steep ones – are inevitable; and rather than fear them, you should expect them and plan for them. Younger physicians with riskier investments have plenty of time to rebound. Physicians nearing retirement, if they have done everything right, probably have the least to lose. Ideally, they will be at or near their savings target and will have transitioned to less vulnerable assets. And remember, you don’t need to have 100% of your retirement money to retire; a sound retirement plan will continue to generate investment returns as you move through retirement.

In short, the essentials of postpandemic financial planning remain the same as before: Make a plan and stick to it.

By way of a brief review, the basics of a good plan are a budget, an emergency fund, disability insurance, and retiring your debt as quickly as possible. All of these have been covered individually in previous columns.

An essential component of your plan should be a list of long-term goals – and it should be more specific than simply accumulating a pile of cash. What do you plan to accomplish with the money? If it’s travel, helping your grandkids with college expenses, hobbies, or something else, make a list. Review it regularly, and modify it if your goals change.

Time to trot out another hoary old cliché: Saving for retirement is a marathon, not a sprint. If the pandemic has temporarily derailed your retirement strategy – forcing you, for example, to make retirement account withdrawals to cover expenses, or raid your emergency fund – no worries! When things have stabilized, it’s time to recommit to your retirement plan. Once again, with so many other issues to deal with, retaining the services of a qualified financial professional is usually a far better strategy than going it alone.

Many readers have expressed the fear that their retirement savings would never recover from the COVID-19 hit – but my own financial adviser pointed out that as I write this, in August, conservative portfolio values are about level with similar portfolios on Jan. 1, 2020. “Good plans are built to withstand difficult times,” she said. “Sometimes staying the course is the most difficult, disciplined course of action.”

“If your gut tells you that things will only get worse,” writes Kimberly Lankford in AARP’s magazine, “know that your gut is a terrible economic forecaster.” The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment hit rock bottom in 2008, during the Great Recession; yet only 4 months later, the U.S. economy began its longest expansion in modern history. The point is that it is important to maintain a long-term approach, and not make changes based on short-term events.

COVID-19 (or whatever else comes along) then becomes a matter of statement pain, not long-term financial pain. The key to recovery has nothing to do with a financial change, an investment strategy change, or a holding change, and everything to do with realigning your long-term goals.

So, moving on from COVID-19 is actually quite simple: Fill your retirement plan to its legal limit and let it grow, tax-deferred. Then invest for the long term, with your target amount in mind. And once again, the earlier you start and the longer you stick with it, the better.

 

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

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

A patient hugged me yesterday, the second one in a week. I am not a hugging doctor. And if I were, sure, I wouldn’t be hugging now while we pass through the eye of the COVID-19 storm. But in both cases, my patients opened their arms wide and leaned in before I had a chance to defend myself.

The first, a carrot-coiffed 80-year-old who stood only as tall as my shoulders, asked if she could hug me just as she put her arms around me, closing any window of opportunity for me to foil her attempt. The second was more of a modified hug. She also was an elderly woman and she too walked in close, then started to put her arm around my back. I dodged, awkwardly so it was more shoulder-to-shoulder than a full on embrace. Best buds. She too acknowledged we shouldn’t be hugging in the time of COVID-19, but felt she just had to. She couldn’t resist the urge.

Hugs may be dangerous, but they’re special. They are how we thank family and close friends, how we say I love you, I missed you, or I got you. Hugging transfers a feeling of gratitude in a richer manner than just words. Both of these hugs given to me were done to thank me and show appreciation. They were also likely part of what they wanted from me in their visit.

We’re taught in medicine about the power of touch. Abraham Verghese, MD, the Stanford University professor of medicine and TED speaker, says indeed, the most important innovation in medicine is the human hand. Yet, because of the risks of infectious diseases and risk of harm caused by inappropriate or unwanted touch, we avert it more often than not these days. Or we use it with surgical precision to mitigate risks or chances of any misadventure.

Still, touch is powerful. It releases oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and cortisol, and boosts immune responses. To be held is a basic human need. And in this time of COVID-19, many of our patients are being deprived of it.

Psychologists have a name for this condition: “skin hunger.” Skin hunger describes our universal need to be touched and, like true hunger, the health consequences of being starved of it. The first thing we do to a newborn is plop her or him, skin to skin, right on mom’s chest. From the start, touch is life giving and is hardwired into our brains as a requirement for survival.

As the pandemic rolls on, it feels we’re losing the power of this most important innovation. Through our masks and face shields, sitting 6 feet away are some patients who might more than anything else need us to touch them. With safety superseding the desire to sate physical contact craving, touch has now become one of the more difficult tasks for us as physicians. We must iterate on this innovation of the human hand. Perhaps through deeper eye contact, by spending an extra minute or two to inquire about a patient’s family or favorite TV shows. It might be a few elbow bumps, perhaps lingering for just a second to transfer your energy and comfort to them. Or using the gloved auscultation exam as an opportunity to rest your hand gently on a patient’s back.

The dangers of COVID-19 won’t be with us forever, but perhaps we can use this extraordinary time to improve upon one of our most valuable tools, the touch that comforts and heals.
 

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The FDA authorized a new type of saliva-based coronavirus test on August 15 that could cut down on the cost of testing and the time it takes to process results.

The emergency use authorization is for SalivaDirect, a diagnostic test created by the Yale School of Public Health. The test doesn’t require a special type of swab or collection tube — saliva can be collected in any sterile container, according to the FDA announcement.

The new test is “yet another testing innovation game changer that will reduce the demand for scarce testing resources,” Admiral Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary for health and the COVID-19 testing coordinator, said in the statement.

The test also doesn’t require a special type of extractor, which is helpful because the extraction kits used to process other tests have faced shortages during the pandemic. The test can be used with different types of reagents and instruments already found in labs.

“Providing this type of flexibility for processing saliva samples to test for COVID-19 infection is groundbreaking in terms of efficiency and avoiding shortages of crucial test components like reagents,” Stephen Hahn, MD, the FDA commissioner, also said in the statement.

Yale will provide the instructions to labs as an “open source” protocol. The test doesn’t require any proprietary equipment or testing components, so labs across the country can assemble and use it based on the FDA guidelines. The testing method is available immediately and could be scaled up quickly in the next few weeks, according to a statement from Yale.

“This is a huge step forward to make testing more accessible,” Chantal Vogels, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale who led the lab development and test validation efforts, said in the statement.

The Yale team is further testing whether the saliva method can be used to find coronavirus cases among people who don’t have any symptoms and has been working with players and staff from the NBA. So far, the results have been accurate and similar to the nasal swabs for COVID-19, according to a preprint study published on medRxiv.

The research team wanted to get rid of the expensive collection tubes that other companies use to preserve the virus during processing, according to the Yale statement. They found that the virus is stable in saliva for long periods of time at warm temperatures and that special tubes aren’t necessary.

The FDA has authorized other saliva-based tests, according to ABC News, but SalivaDirect is the first that doesn’t require the extraction process used to test viral genetic material. Instead, the Yale process breaks down the saliva with an enzyme and applied heat. This type of testing could cost about $10, the Yale researchers said, and people can collect the saliva themselves under supervision.

“This, I hope, is a turning point,” Anne Wyllie, PhD, one of the lead researchers at Yale, told the news station.* “Expand testing capacity, inspire creativity and we can take competition to those labs charging a lot and bring prices down.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Correction, 8/25/20: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Wylie's academic degree.

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

The 2020 pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented significant challenges to the health care workforce.^1,2 As New York City and its environs became the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, we continued to care for our patients while simultaneously maintaining the education and well-being of our residents.³ Keeping this balance significantly strained resources and presented new challenges for education and service in residency education. What first emerged as an acute emergency has become a chronic disruption in the clinical learning environment. Programs are working to respond to the critical patient needs while ensuring continued progress toward training goals.

Since pregnancy is one condition for which healthy patients continued to require both outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization, volume was not anticipated to be significantly decreased on our units. Thus, our ObGyn residency programs sought to expeditiously restructure our workforce and educational methods to address the demands of the pandemic. We were aided in our efforts by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Extraordinary Circumstances policy. Our institutions were deemed to be functioning at Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status, a state in which “the increase in volume and/or severity of illness creates an extraordinary circumstance where routine care, education, and delivery must be reconfigured to focus only on patient care.”⁴

As of May 18, 2020, 26% of residency and fellowship programs in the United States were under Stage 3 COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Status.⁵ Accordingly, our patient care delivery and educational processes were reconfigured within the context of Stage 3 Status, governed by the overriding principles of ensuring appropriate resources and training, adhering to work hour limits, providing adequate supervision, and credentialing fellows to function in our core specialty.

As ObGyn education leaders from 5 academic medical centers within the COVID-19 epicenter, we present a summary of best practices, based on our experiences, for each of the 4 categories of Stage 3 Status outlined by the ACGME. In an era of globalization, we must learn from pandemics, a call made after the Ebola outbreak in 2015.⁶ We recognize that this type of disruption could happen again with a possible second wave of COVID-19 or another emerging disease.⁷ Thus, we emphasize “lessons learned” that are applicable to a wide range of residency training programs facing various clinical crises.

Ensuring adequate resources and training

Within the context of Stage 3 Status, residency programs have the flexibility to increase residents’ availability in the clinical care setting. However, programs must ensure the safety of both patients and residents.

Continue to: Measures to decrease risk of infection...

 

 

Measures to decrease risk of infection

One critical resource needed to protect patients and residents is personal protective equipment (PPE). Online instruction and in-person training were used to educate residents and staff on appropriate techniques for donning, doffing, and conserving PPE. Surgical teams were limited to 1 surgeon and 1 resident in each case. In an effort to limit direct contact with COVID-19 infected patients, the number of health care providers rounding on inpatients was restricted, and phone or video conversations were used for communication.

The workforce was modified to decrease exposure to infection and maintain a reserve of healthy residents who were working from home—anticipating that some residents would become ill and this reserve would be called for duty. Similar to other specialties, our programs organized the workforce by arranging residents into teams in which residents worked a number of shifts in a row.^8-12 Regular block schedules were disrupted and non-core rotations were deferred.

As surgeries were canceled and outpatient visits curtailed, many rotations required less resident coverage. Residents were reassigned from rotations where clinical work was suspended to accommodate increased staffing needs in other areas, while accounting for residents who were ill or on leave for postexposure quarantine. Typically, residents worked 12-hour shifts for 3 to 6 days followed by several days off or days working remotely. This team-based strategy decreased the number of residents exposed to COVID-19 at one time, provided time for recuperation, encouraged camaraderie, and enabled residents working remotely to coordinate care and participate in telehealth without direct patient contact.

To minimize high-risk exposure of pregnant residents or residents with underlying health conditions, these residents also worked remotely. Similar to other specialties, it was important to determine essential resident duties and enlist assistance from other clinicians, such as fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives.

To protect residents and patients, maximizing testing of patients for COVID-19 was an important strategy. Based on early experience at 1 center with patients who were initially asymptomatic but later developed symptoms and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), universal testing was implemented and endorsed by the New York State COVID-19 Maternity Task Force.¹³ Notably, 87.9% of patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of admission had no symptoms of COVID-19 at presentation. Because the asymptomatic carrier rate appears to be high in obstetric patients, testing of patients is paramount.^3,14 Finally, suspending visitation (except for 1 support person) also was instrumental in decreasing the risk of infection to residents.¹³

Resources for residents with COVID-19

This pandemic placed residency program directors in an unusual situation as frontline caregivers for their own residents. It was imperative to track residents with physical symptoms, conduct testing when possible, and follow the course of residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. As serious illness and death have been reported among otherwise healthy young people, we ensured that our homebound residents were frequently monitored.¹⁵ At several of our centers, residents with COVID-19 from any program who chose to separate from their families were provided with alternative housing accommodations. In addition, some of our graduate medical education offices identified specific physicians to care for residents with COVID-19 who did not require hospitalization.

Continue to: Deployment to other specialties...

 

 

Deployment to other specialties

Several hospitals in the United States redeployed residents because of staffing shortages in high-impact settings.¹² It was important for ObGyns to emphasize that the labor and delivery unit functions as the emergency ward for pregnant women, and that ObGyn residents possess skills specific to the care of these patients.

For our departments, we highlighted that external redeployment could adversely affect our workforce restructuring and, ultimately, patient care. We focused efforts on internal deployment or reassignment as much as possible. Some faculty and fellows in nonobstetric subspecialty areas were redirected to provide care on our inpatient obstetric services.

Educating residents

To maintain educational efforts with social distancing, we used videoconferencing to preserve the protected didactic education time that existed for our residents before the pandemic. This regularly scheduled, nonclinical time also was utilized to instruct residents on the rapidly changing clinical guidelines and to disseminate information about new institutional policies and procedures, ensuring that residents were adequately prepared for their new clinical work.

Work hour requirements

The ACGME requires that work hour limitations remain unchanged during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status. As the pandemic presented new challenges and stressors for residents inside and outside the workplace, ensuring adequate time off to rest and recover was critical for maintaining the resident workforce’s health and wellness.

Thus, our workforce restructuring plans accounted for work hour limitations. As detailed above, the restructuring was accomplished by cohorting residents into small teams that remained unchanged for several weeks. Most shifts were limited to 12 hours, residents continued to be assigned at least 1 day off each week, and daily schedules were structured to ensure at least 10 hours off between shifts. Time spent working remotely was included in work hour calculations.

In addition, residents on “jeopardy” who were available for those who needed to be removed from direct patient care were given at least 1 day off per week in which they could not be pulled for clinical duty. Finally, prolonged inpatient assignments were limited; after these assignments, residents were given increased time for rest and recuperation.

Ensuring adequate supervision

The expectation during Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status is that residents, with adequate supervision, provide care that is appropriate for their level of training. To adequately and safely supervise residents, faculty needed training to remain well informed about the clinical care of COVID-19 patients. This was accomplished through frequent communication and consultation with colleagues in infectious disease, occupational health, and guidance from national organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and information from our state health departments.

Faculty members were trained in safe donning and doffing of PPE and infection control strategies to ensure they could safely oversee and train residents in these practices. Faculty schedules were significantly altered to ensure an adequate workforce and adequate resident supervision. Faculty efforts were focused on areas of critical need—in our case inpatient obstetrics—with a smaller workforce assigned to outpatient services and inpatient gynecology and gynecologic oncology. Many ObGyn subspecialist faculty were redeployed to general ObGyn inpatient units, thus permitting appropriate resident supervision at all times. In the outpatient setting, faculty adjusted to the changing demands and learned to conduct and supervise telehealth visits.

Finally, for those whose residents were deployed to other services (for example, internal medicine, emergency medicine, or critical care), supervision became paramount. We checked in with our deployed residents daily to be sure that their supervision on those services was adequate. Considering the extreme complexity, rapidly changing understanding of the disease, and often tragic patient outcomes, it was essential to ensure appropriate support and supervision on “off service” deployment.

Continue to: Fellows functioning in core specialty...

Fellows functioning in core specialty

Anticipating the increased need for clinicians on the obstetric services, fellows in subspecialty areas were granted emergency privileges to act as attending faculty in the core specialty, supervising residents and providing patient care. On the other hand, some of those fellows, primarily in gynecologic oncology, were externally redeployed out of core specialty to internal medicine and critical care units. Careful consideration of the fellows’ needs for supervision and support in these roles was essential, and similar support measures that were put in place for our residents were offered to fellows.

In conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented diverse and complex challenges to the entire health care workforce. Because this crisis is widespread and likely will be lengthy, a sustained and organized response is required.¹⁶ We have highlighted unique challenges specific to residency programs and presented collective best practices from our experiences in ObGyn navigating these obstacles, which are applicable to many other programs.

The flexibility and relief afforded by the ACGME Stage 3 Pandemic Emergency Status designation allowed us to meet the needs of the surge of patients that required care while we maintained our educational framework and tenets of providing adequate resources and training, working within the confines of safe work hours, ensuring proper supervision, and granting attending privileges to fellows in their core specialty. ●

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Shortages of personal protective equipment and medical supplies could persist for years without strategic government intervention, officials from health care and manufacturing industries have predicted.

Liliboas/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Officials said logistical challenges continue 7 months after the coronavirus reached the United States, as the flu season approaches and as some state emergency management agencies prepare for a fall surge in COVID-19 cases.

Although the disarray is not as widespread as it was this spring, hospitals said rolling shortages of supplies range from specialized beds to disposable isolation gowns to thermometers.

“A few weeks ago, we were having a very difficult time getting the sanitary wipes. You just couldn’t get them,” said Bernard Klein, MD, chief executive of Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in Mission Hills, Calif., near Los Angeles. “We actually had to manufacture our own.”

This same dynamic has played out across a number of critical supplies in his hospital. First masks, then isolation gowns and now a specialized bed that allows nurses to turn COVID-19 patients onto their bellies – equipment that helps workers with what can otherwise be a six-person job.

“We’ve seen whole families come to our hospital with COVID, and several members hospitalized at the same time,” said Dr. Klein. “It’s very, very sad.”

Testing supplies ran short as the predominantly Latino community served by Providence Holy Cross was hit hard by COVID, and even as nearby hospitals could process 15-minute tests.

“If we had a more coordinated response with a partnership between the medical field, the government and the private industry, it would help improve the supply chain to the areas that need it most,” Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Klein said he expected to deal with equipment and supply shortages throughout 2021, especially as flu season approaches.

“Most people focus on those N95 respirators,” said Carmela Coyle, CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry group that represents more than 400 hospitals across one of America’s hardest-hit states.

She said she believed COVID-19-related supply challenges will persist through 2022.

“We have been challenged with shortages of isolation gowns, face shields, which you’re now starting to see in public places. Any one piece that’s in shortage or not available creates risk for patients and for health care workers,” said Ms. Coyle.

At the same time, trade associations representing manufacturers said persuading customers to shift to American suppliers had been difficult.

“I also have industry that’s working only at 10-20% capacity, who can make PPE in our own backyard, but have no orders,” said Kim Glas, CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, whose members make reusable cloth gowns.

Manufacturers in her organization have made “hundreds of millions of products,” but, without long-term government contracts, many are apprehensive to invest in the equipment needed to scale up the business and eventually lower prices.

“If there continues to be an upward trajectory of COVID-19 cases, not just in the U.S. but globally, you can see those supply chains breaking down again,” Ms. Glas said. “It is a health care security issue.”

For the past 2 decades, personal protective equipment was supplied to health care institutions in lean supply chains in the same way toilet paper was to grocery stores. Chains between major manufacturers and end users were so efficient, there was no need to stockpile goods.

But in March, the supply chain broke when major Asian PPE exporters embargoed materials or shut down just as demand increased exponentially. Thus, health care institutions were in much the same position as regular grocery shoppers, who were trying to buy great quantities of a product they never needed to stockpile before.

“I am very concerned about long-term PPE shortages for the foreseeable future,” said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

“There’s no question the situation is better than it was a couple of months ago,” said Bailey. However, many health care organizations, including her own, have struggled to obtain PPE. Bailey practices at a 10-doctor allergy clinic and was met with a 10,000-mask minimum when they tried to order N95 respirators.

“We have not seen evidence of a long-term strategic plan for the manufacture, acquisition and distribution of PPE” from the government, said Dr. Bailey. “The supply chain needs to be strengthened dramatically, and we need less dependence on foreign goods to manufacture our own PPE in the U.S.”

Some products have now come back to be made in the United States – although factories are not expected to be able to reach demand until mid-2021.

“A lot has been done in the last 6 months. We are largely out of the hole, and we have planted the seeds to render the United States self-sufficient,” said Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry.

In 2019, 850 tons of the material used in disposable masks was made in the United States. Around 10,000 tons is expected to be made in 2021, satisfying perhaps 80% of demand. But PPE is a suite of items – including gloves, gowns and face shields – not all of which have seen the same success.

“Thermometers are becoming a real issue,” said Cindy Juhas, chief strategy officer of CME, an American health care product distributor. “They’re expecting even a problem with needles and syringes for the amount of vaccines they have to make.”

Federal government efforts to address the supply chain have foundered. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, in charge of the COVID-19 response, told congressional interviewers in June it had “no involvement” in distributing PPE to hot spots.

Project Airbridge, an initiative headed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, flew PPE from international suppliers to the U.S. at taxpayer expense but was phased out. And the government has not responded to the AMA’s calls for more distribution data.

Arguably, Dr. Klein is among the best placed to weather such disruptions. He is part of a 51-hospital chain with purchasing power, and among the institutions that distributors prioritize when selling supplies. But tribulations continue even in hospitals, as shortages have pushed buyers to look directly for manufacturers, often through a swamp of companies that have sprung up overnight.

Now distributors are being called upon not just by their traditional customers – hospitals and long-term care homes – but by nearly every segment of society. First responders, schools, clinics and even food businesses are all buying medical equipment now.

“There’s going to be lots of other shortages we haven’t even thought about,” said Ms. Juhas.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.