User login
Whole-person care: Our foundation, our future
In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.
The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).1 Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!
Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.
The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.
Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.
We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it.
PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
1. Theoi Greek Mythology Web site. https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Asklepios.html. Accessed November 30, 2020.
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.
The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).1 Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!
Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.
The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.
Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.
We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it.
PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.
The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).1 Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!
Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.
The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.
Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.
We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it.
PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
1. Theoi Greek Mythology Web site. https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Asklepios.html. Accessed November 30, 2020.
1. Theoi Greek Mythology Web site. https://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Asklepios.html. Accessed November 30, 2020.
New residency matching sets record, says NRMP
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Biden chooses California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to head HHS
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dermatology and Vaccines: We Must Do Better
Vaccines work. They are powerful tools that have saved millions of lives worldwide; however, a robust antivaccine movement has taken hold in the United States and worldwide despite overwhelming data in support of vaccination. In fact, vaccine hesitancy—the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines—was listed by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 global health threats in 2019.1
Several vaccines have a role in dermatology, including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil 9 [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp]), the herpes zoster vaccines (Zostavax [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp] and Shingrix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals]), and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, among others. These vaccinations are necessary for children and many adults alike, and they play a critical role in protecting both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.
Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to individual and public health that requires a response from all physicians. In our experience, dermatologists have been somewhat passive in advocating for vaccinations, possibly due to knowledge barriers or time constraints; however, this stance must change. Dermatologists must join the front lines in advocating for vaccinations, which are a proven and effective modality in promoting public health.
Dermatologists can employ the following practical tips to improve vaccination compliance among patients:
• Familiarize yourself with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization schedules and vaccination information sheets (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.html). Printed copies of informational handouts should be readily available to provide to patients in the office. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also offers tip sheets to guide conversations with patients (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/index.html).
• Prior to starting an immunosuppressive medication, confirm the patient’s immunization status. You should know which vaccines are live (containing an attenuated pathogen) and which are inactivated. Live vaccines typically are not administered to immunosuppressed patients.
• Use electronic medical records to help provide reminders to prompt administration of any necessary vaccines.
• Know the facts, especially regarding purported vaccine controversies, and be able to cite data on vaccine safety and efficacy. For example, when having a conversation with a patient you could state that vaccination against HPV, which can cause genital warts and certain cancers, has decreased the number of HPV infections by more than 70% in young women and 80% in teenaged girls.2 Cervical precancers were reduced by 40% in women vaccinated against HPV. Twelve years of monitoring data validates the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine—it is safe and effective, with benefits that outweigh any potential risks.2
• Tailor counseling based on the patient’s age and focus on benefits that directly impact the patient. For example, consider showing young adults photographs of genital warts while educating them that the HPV vaccine can help prevent this kind of infection in the future.
• Emphasize that vaccines are a routine part of comprehensive patient care and support this point by providing data and specific reasons for recommending vaccines.3 Avoid phrases such as, “Do you want the vaccine?” or “You could consider receiving the vaccine today,” which can imply that the vaccine is not necessary.
• Offer vaccines in your office or provide clear printed informational sheets directing patients to nearby primary care clinics, infectious disease clinics, or pharmacies where vaccinations are offered.
• Consider using social media to promote the benefits of vaccination among patients.
The recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought the topic of vaccination into the limelight while highlighting that rampant misinformation can lead to distrust of health care workers. Dermatologists, along with all physicians, should be trusted advisors and advocates for public health. In addition to being knowledgeable, dermatologists must remain open-minded in having conversations with skeptical patients. Physicians must take the time and effort to promote vaccinations—the health of patients and the general public depends on it.
- Akbar R. Ten threats to global health in 2019. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019. Published March 21, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- HPV vaccination is safe and effective. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccinesafety.html. Updated April 29, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- How to give a strong recommendation to adult patients who require vaccination. Medscape website. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/842874. Published April 16, 2015. Accessed November 11, 2020.
Vaccines work. They are powerful tools that have saved millions of lives worldwide; however, a robust antivaccine movement has taken hold in the United States and worldwide despite overwhelming data in support of vaccination. In fact, vaccine hesitancy—the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines—was listed by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 global health threats in 2019.1
Several vaccines have a role in dermatology, including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil 9 [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp]), the herpes zoster vaccines (Zostavax [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp] and Shingrix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals]), and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, among others. These vaccinations are necessary for children and many adults alike, and they play a critical role in protecting both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.
Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to individual and public health that requires a response from all physicians. In our experience, dermatologists have been somewhat passive in advocating for vaccinations, possibly due to knowledge barriers or time constraints; however, this stance must change. Dermatologists must join the front lines in advocating for vaccinations, which are a proven and effective modality in promoting public health.
Dermatologists can employ the following practical tips to improve vaccination compliance among patients:
• Familiarize yourself with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization schedules and vaccination information sheets (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.html). Printed copies of informational handouts should be readily available to provide to patients in the office. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also offers tip sheets to guide conversations with patients (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/index.html).
• Prior to starting an immunosuppressive medication, confirm the patient’s immunization status. You should know which vaccines are live (containing an attenuated pathogen) and which are inactivated. Live vaccines typically are not administered to immunosuppressed patients.
• Use electronic medical records to help provide reminders to prompt administration of any necessary vaccines.
• Know the facts, especially regarding purported vaccine controversies, and be able to cite data on vaccine safety and efficacy. For example, when having a conversation with a patient you could state that vaccination against HPV, which can cause genital warts and certain cancers, has decreased the number of HPV infections by more than 70% in young women and 80% in teenaged girls.2 Cervical precancers were reduced by 40% in women vaccinated against HPV. Twelve years of monitoring data validates the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine—it is safe and effective, with benefits that outweigh any potential risks.2
• Tailor counseling based on the patient’s age and focus on benefits that directly impact the patient. For example, consider showing young adults photographs of genital warts while educating them that the HPV vaccine can help prevent this kind of infection in the future.
• Emphasize that vaccines are a routine part of comprehensive patient care and support this point by providing data and specific reasons for recommending vaccines.3 Avoid phrases such as, “Do you want the vaccine?” or “You could consider receiving the vaccine today,” which can imply that the vaccine is not necessary.
• Offer vaccines in your office or provide clear printed informational sheets directing patients to nearby primary care clinics, infectious disease clinics, or pharmacies where vaccinations are offered.
• Consider using social media to promote the benefits of vaccination among patients.
The recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought the topic of vaccination into the limelight while highlighting that rampant misinformation can lead to distrust of health care workers. Dermatologists, along with all physicians, should be trusted advisors and advocates for public health. In addition to being knowledgeable, dermatologists must remain open-minded in having conversations with skeptical patients. Physicians must take the time and effort to promote vaccinations—the health of patients and the general public depends on it.
Vaccines work. They are powerful tools that have saved millions of lives worldwide; however, a robust antivaccine movement has taken hold in the United States and worldwide despite overwhelming data in support of vaccination. In fact, vaccine hesitancy—the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines—was listed by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 global health threats in 2019.1
Several vaccines have a role in dermatology, including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Gardasil 9 [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp]), the herpes zoster vaccines (Zostavax [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp] and Shingrix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals]), and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, among others. These vaccinations are necessary for children and many adults alike, and they play a critical role in protecting both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.
Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to individual and public health that requires a response from all physicians. In our experience, dermatologists have been somewhat passive in advocating for vaccinations, possibly due to knowledge barriers or time constraints; however, this stance must change. Dermatologists must join the front lines in advocating for vaccinations, which are a proven and effective modality in promoting public health.
Dermatologists can employ the following practical tips to improve vaccination compliance among patients:
• Familiarize yourself with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention immunization schedules and vaccination information sheets (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.html). Printed copies of informational handouts should be readily available to provide to patients in the office. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also offers tip sheets to guide conversations with patients (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/index.html).
• Prior to starting an immunosuppressive medication, confirm the patient’s immunization status. You should know which vaccines are live (containing an attenuated pathogen) and which are inactivated. Live vaccines typically are not administered to immunosuppressed patients.
• Use electronic medical records to help provide reminders to prompt administration of any necessary vaccines.
• Know the facts, especially regarding purported vaccine controversies, and be able to cite data on vaccine safety and efficacy. For example, when having a conversation with a patient you could state that vaccination against HPV, which can cause genital warts and certain cancers, has decreased the number of HPV infections by more than 70% in young women and 80% in teenaged girls.2 Cervical precancers were reduced by 40% in women vaccinated against HPV. Twelve years of monitoring data validates the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine—it is safe and effective, with benefits that outweigh any potential risks.2
• Tailor counseling based on the patient’s age and focus on benefits that directly impact the patient. For example, consider showing young adults photographs of genital warts while educating them that the HPV vaccine can help prevent this kind of infection in the future.
• Emphasize that vaccines are a routine part of comprehensive patient care and support this point by providing data and specific reasons for recommending vaccines.3 Avoid phrases such as, “Do you want the vaccine?” or “You could consider receiving the vaccine today,” which can imply that the vaccine is not necessary.
• Offer vaccines in your office or provide clear printed informational sheets directing patients to nearby primary care clinics, infectious disease clinics, or pharmacies where vaccinations are offered.
• Consider using social media to promote the benefits of vaccination among patients.
The recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought the topic of vaccination into the limelight while highlighting that rampant misinformation can lead to distrust of health care workers. Dermatologists, along with all physicians, should be trusted advisors and advocates for public health. In addition to being knowledgeable, dermatologists must remain open-minded in having conversations with skeptical patients. Physicians must take the time and effort to promote vaccinations—the health of patients and the general public depends on it.
- Akbar R. Ten threats to global health in 2019. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019. Published March 21, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- HPV vaccination is safe and effective. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccinesafety.html. Updated April 29, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- How to give a strong recommendation to adult patients who require vaccination. Medscape website. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/842874. Published April 16, 2015. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- Akbar R. Ten threats to global health in 2019. World Health Organization website. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019. Published March 21, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- HPV vaccination is safe and effective. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccinesafety.html. Updated April 29, 2019. Accessed November 11, 2020.
- How to give a strong recommendation to adult patients who require vaccination. Medscape website. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/842874. Published April 16, 2015. Accessed November 11, 2020.
Addressing Maternal Mortality Through Education: The Mommies Methadone Program
From the UT Health Long School of Medicine San Antonio, Texas.
Abstract
Objective: To educate pregnant patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) about the effects of opioids in order to improve understanding and help achieve sustained abstinence.
Methods: The Center for Health Care Services and University Hospital System (UHS) in San Antonio, TX, jointly o
Results: Of 68 women enrolled in the program, 33 completed both the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Nearly half (48%) were very motivated to quit before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. All participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety. Prior to the educational intervention, 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed on methadone, which improved to 97% in the post-survey, and 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health care providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so.
Conclusion: Pregnancy and education about opioids increased patients’ motivation to quit. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge and learned about patient-provider confidentiality. Our greatest challenge was participant follow-up; however, this improved with the help of a full-time Mommies Program nurse. Our future aim is to increase project awareness and extend the educational research.
Keywords: pregnancy; addiction; opioids; OUD; counseling.
In 2012 more than 259 million prescriptions for opioids were written in the United States, which was a 200% increase since 1998.1 Since the early 2000s, admissions to opioid substance abuse programs and the death rate from opioids have quadrupled.2-4 Specifically, the rate of heroin use increased more than 300% from 2010 to 2014.5 Opioid use in pregnancy has also escalated in recent years, with a 3- to 4-fold increase from 2000 to 2009 and with 4 in 1000 deliveries being complicated by opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2011.6-8
Between 2000 and 2014, the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 24%, making it the only industrialized nation with a maternal mortality rate that is rising rather than falling.9 The Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force found that between 2012 and 2015 drug overdose was the leading cause of maternal death in the period from delivery to 365 days postpartum, and it has increased dramatically since 2010.10,11
In addition, maternal mortality reviews in several states have identified substance use as a major risk factor for pregnancy-associated deaths.12,13 In Texas between 2012 and 2015, opioids were found in 58% of maternal drug overdoses.10 In 2007, 22.8% of women who were enrolled in Medicaid programs in 46 states filled an opioid prescription during pregnancy.14 Additionally, the rising prevalence of opioid use in pregnancy has led to a sharp increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), rising from 1.5 cases per 1000 hospital births in 1999 to 6.0 per 1000 hospital births in 2013.15 Unsurprisingly, states with the highest rates of opioid prescribing also have the highest rates of NAS.16
Methadone combined with counseling and behavioral therapy has been the standard of care for the treatment of OUD in pregnancy since the 1970s. Methadone treatment prevents opioid withdrawal symptoms and increases adherence to prenatal care.17 One of the largest methadone treatment clinics in the San Antonio, TX, area is the Center for Health Care Services (CHCS). University Health System in San Antonio (UHS) has established a clinic called The Mommies Program, where mothers addicted to opioids can receive prenatal care by a dedicated physician, registered nurse, and a certified nurse midwife, who work in collaboration with the CHCS methadone clinic. Pregnant patients with OUD in pregnancy are concurrently enrolled in the Mommies Program and receive prenatal care through UHS and methadone treatment and counseling through CHCS. The continuity effort aims to increase prenatal care rates and adherence to methadone treatment.
Once mothers are off illicit opioids and on methadone, it is essential to discuss breastfeeding with them, as many mothers addicted to illicit opioids may have been told that they should not be breastfeeding. However, breastfeeding should be encouraged in women who are stable on methadone if they are not using illicit drugs and do not have other contraindications, regardless of maternal methadone dose, since the transfer of methadone into breast milk is minimal.18-20 Breastfeeding is beneficial in women taking methadone and has been associated with decreased severity of NAS symptoms, decreased need for pharmacotherapy, and a shorter hospital stay for the baby.21 In addition, breastfeeding contributes to the development of an attachment between mother and infant, while also providing the infant with natural immunity. Women should be counseled about the need to stop breastfeeding in the event of a relapse.22
Finally, the postpartum period represents a time of increased stressors, such as loss of sleep, child protective services involvement, and frustration with constant demands from new baby. For mothers with addiction, this is an especially sensitive time, as the stressors may be exacerbated by their new sobriety and a sudden end to the motivation they experienced from pregnancy.23 Therefore, early and frequent postpartum care with methadone dose evaluation is essential in order to decrease drug relapse and screen for postpartum depression in detail, since patients with a history of drug use are at increased risk of postpartum depression.
In 2017 medical students at UT Health Long School of Medicine in San Antonio created a project to educate women about OUD in pregnancy and provide motivational incentives for sustained abstinence; this project has continued each year since. Students provide education about methadone treatment and the dangers of using illicit opioids during and after pregnancy. Students especially focus on educating patients on the key problem areas in the literature, such as overdose, NAS, breastfeeding, postpartum substance use, and postpartum depression.
Methods
From October 2018 to February 2020, a total of 15 medical students volunteered between 1 and 20 times at the Mommies Program clinic, which was held once or twice per week from 8
The only inclusion criteria for participating in the educational intervention and survey was participants had to be 18 years of age or older and enrolled in the Mommies Program. Patients who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate completed a pre-survey administered by the students during the patient’s initial prenatal visit (Figure 2). This survey collected baseline information about the patient’s history with opioid use and their current knowledge of methadone treatment, NAS, legal aspects of drug use disclosure, and drug testing prior to the education portion of the encounter. After the pre-survey was administered, students spent 30 minutes reviewing the correct answers of the survey with the patients by utilizing the standardized handout to help patients understand details of methadone and opioid use in pregnancy (Figure 1). The post-survey was administered by a student once patients entered the third trimester to assess whether the education session increased patients’ knowledge of these topics.
At the time patients completed the post-survey, they received a Baby Bag as well as education regarding each item in the bag. The aim of distributing Baby Bags was to relieve some possible postnatal stressors and educate the patients about infant care. Items included in the bag were diapers, wipes, bottles, clothes, and swaddles. Prenatal vitamins were added in January 2020, as many patients struggle to afford vitamins if they are not currently covered by Medicaid or have other barriers. The Baby Bag items were purchased through a Community Service Learning grant through UT Health San Antonio.
Results
Of 68 women enrolled in the Mommies Program during the intervention period, 33 completed the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Even though all patients enrolled in the program met the inclusion criteria, patients were not included in the educational program for multiple reasons, including refusal to participate, poor clinic follow-up, or lack of students to collect surveys. However, all patients who completed the pre-survey did complete the post-survey. In the pre-survey, only 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone. In the post-survey, 97% knew it safe to breastfeed. Nearly half (48%) reported being very motivated to quit opioids before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. In the pre-survey, 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so. Also, all participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety.
Discussion
Questions assessed during the educational surveys revolved around patients’ knowledge of the intricacies, legally and physiologically, of methadone treatment for OUD, as well as beneficial aspects for patients and future child health, such as breastfeeding and motivation to quit and stay sober.
It was clear that there was a lack of knowledge and education about breastfeeding, as only 39% of the participants thought that it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone in the pre-survey; in the post survey, this improved to 97%. Students spent a large portion of the educational time going over the safety of breastfeeding for patients on methadone and the many benefits to mother and baby. Students also reviewed breastfeeding with patients every time patients came in for a visit and debunked any falsehoods about the negatives of breastfeeding while on methadone. This is another testament to the benefits of reinforcement around patient education.
The area of trust between provider and patient is essential in all provider-patient relationships. However, in the area of addiction, a trusting bond is especially important, as patients must feel confident and comfortable to disclose every aspect of their lives so the provider can give the best care. It was clear from our initial data that many patients did not feel this trust or understand the legal aspects regarding the provider-patient relationship in the terms of drug use, as the pre-survey shows 76% of patients originally thought they would be reported to authorities if they told their provider they used illegal drugs during pregnancy. This was an enormous issue in the clinic and something that needed to be addressed because, based on these data, we feared many patients would not be honest about using illegal drugs to supplement their methadone if they believed they would be reported to the authorities or even jailed. The medical student education team continually assured patients that their honesty about illegal drug use during pregnancy would not be revealed to the authorities, and also made it clear to patients that it was essential they were honest about illegal drug use so the optimal care could be provided by the team. These discussions were successful, as the post-survey showed that 100% of patients knew they would not be reported to the authorities if they used illegal drugs during the pregnancy. This showed an increase in knowledge, but also suggested an increase in confidence in the provider-patient relationship by patients, which we speculate allowed for a better patient experience, better patient outcomes, and less emotional stress for the patient and provider.
Last, we wanted to study and address the motivation to quit using drugs and stay sober through learning about the effects of opiates and how this motivation was related to pregnancy. A study by Mitchell et al makes clear that pregnancy is a motivation to seek treatment for drug use and to quit,24 and our survey data support these findings, with 48% of patients motivated to quit before they were pregnant and 85% motivated to quit once they knew they were pregnant. In addition, all patients attested on the pre- and post-survey that learning more about opioids would increase their motivation for sobriety. Therefore, we believe education about the use of opioids and other drugs is a strong motivation towards sobriety and should be further studied in methadone treatment and other drugs as well.
We will continue to focus on sobriety postpartum by using the education in pregnancy as a springboard to further postpartum education, as education seems to be very beneficial to future sobriety. In the future, we believe extending the educational program past pregnancy and discussing opioid use and addiction with patients at multiple follow-up visits will be beneficial to patients’ sobriety.
We faced 2 main challenges in implementing this intervention and survey: patients would often miss multiple appointments during their third trimester or would not attend their postpartum visit if they only had 1 prenatal visit; and many clinic sessions had low student attendance because students often had many other responsibilities in medical school and there were only 15 volunteers over the study time. These challenges decreased our post-survey completion rate. However, there has been improvement in follow-up as the project has continued. The Mommies Program now has a full-time registered nurse, and a larger number of medical student teachers have volunteered to attend the clinic. In the future, we aim to increase awareness of our project and the benefits of participation, expand advertising at our medical school to increase student participation, and increase follow-up education in the postpartum period.
Another future direction is to include local, free doula services, which are offered through Catholic Charities in San Antonio. Doulas provide antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum services, which we believe will help our patients through advocacy and support for sobriety during this emotional and stressful time.
Conclusion
Counseled participants were receptive to learning about the effects of OUD and methadone on themselves and their newborn. Participants unanimously stated that learning more about OUD increased their motivation for sobriety. It was also clear that the increased motivation to be sober during pregnancy, as compared to before pregnancy, is an opportunity to help these women take steps to get sober. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge, as we helped debunk falsehoods surrounding breastfeeding while on methadone, and we anticipate this will lead to greater breastfeeding rates for our patients on methadone, although this was not specifically studied. Finally, patients learned about patient-provider confidentiality, which allowed for more open and clear communication with patients so they could be cared for to the greatest degree and trust could remain paramount.
Drug use is a common problem in the health care system, and exposure to patients with addiction is important for medical students in training. We believe that attending the Mommies Program allowed medical students to gain exposure and skills to better help patients with OUD.
Corresponding author: Nicholas Stansbury, MD, Nmstansbury85@gmail.com.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: where you live makes a difference. CDC website. www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/opioid-prescribing. Accessed October 28, 2020.
2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4760, DAWN Series D-39. Rockville (MD): SAMHSA; 2013. www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
3. Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between nonmedical prescription-opioid use and heroin use. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:154-63.
4. National Center for Health Statistics. NCHS data on drug-poisoning deaths. NCHS Factsheet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet-drug-poisoning-H.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
5. National Institute on Drug Abuse. America’s addiction to opioids: heroin and prescription drug abuse. Bethesda (MD): NIDA; 2014. www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse. Accessed October 28, 2020.
6. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011 Contract No.: HHS Publication no. (SMA) 11–4658.
7. Maeda A, Bateman BT, Clancy CR, et al. Opioid abuse and dependence during pregnancy: temporal trends and obstetrical outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:1158-1165.
8. Whiteman VE, Salemi JL, Mogos MF, et al. Maternal opioid drug use during pregnancy and its impact on perinatal morbidity, mortality, and the costs of medical care in the United States. J Pregnancy. 2014;2014:1-8
9. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm#trends. Accessed February 4, 2020.
10. Macdorman MF, Declercq E, Cabral H, Morton C. Recent increases in the U.S. maternal mortality rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:447-455.
11. Texas Health and Human Services. Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force and Department of State Health Services Joint Biennial Report, September 2018. www.dshs.texas.gov/legislative/2018-Reports/MMMTFJointReport2018.pdf
12. Virginia Department of Health. Pregnancy-associated deaths from drug overdose in Virginia, 1999-2007: a report from the Virginia Maternal Mortality Review Team. Richmond, VA: VDH; 2015. www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Final-Pregnancy-Associated-Deaths-Due-to-Drug-Overdose.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
13. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Maryland maternal mortality review 2016 annual report. Baltimore: DHMH; 2016. https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/Documents/Maryland-Maternal-Mortality-Review-2016-Report.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
14. Desai RJ, Hernandez-Diaz S, Bateman BT, Huybrechts KF. Increase in prescription opioid use during pregnancy among Medicaid-enrolled women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:997-1002.
15. Reddy UM, Davis JM, Ren Z, et al. Opioid use in pregnancy, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and childhood outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 2017;72:703-705.
16. Patrick SW, Davis MM, Lehmann CU, Cooper WO. Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012. J Perinatol. 2015;35:650-655.
17. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction during pregnancy. In: Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction in opioid treatment programs. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 43. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2005:211-224.
18. Wojnar-Horton RE, Kristensen JH, Yapp P, et al. Methadone distribution and excretion into breast milk of clients in a methadone maintenance programme. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:543-547.
19. Reece-Stremtan S, Marinelli KA. ABM clinical protocol #21: guidelines for breastfeeding and substance use or substance use disorder, revised 2015. Breastfeed Med. 2015;10:135-141.
20. Sachs HC. The transfer of drugs and therapeutics into human breast milk: an update on selected topics. Committee on Drugs. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e796-809.
21. Bagley SM, Wachman EM, Holland E, Brogly SB. Review of the assessment and management of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014;9:19.
22. Opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 711. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:488-489.
23. Gopman S. Prenatal and postpartum care of women with substance use disorders. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2014;41:213-228.
24. Mitchell M, Severtson S, Latimer W. Pregnancy and race/ethnicity as predictors of motivation for drug treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2008;34:397-404.
From the UT Health Long School of Medicine San Antonio, Texas.
Abstract
Objective: To educate pregnant patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) about the effects of opioids in order to improve understanding and help achieve sustained abstinence.
Methods: The Center for Health Care Services and University Hospital System (UHS) in San Antonio, TX, jointly o
Results: Of 68 women enrolled in the program, 33 completed both the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Nearly half (48%) were very motivated to quit before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. All participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety. Prior to the educational intervention, 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed on methadone, which improved to 97% in the post-survey, and 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health care providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so.
Conclusion: Pregnancy and education about opioids increased patients’ motivation to quit. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge and learned about patient-provider confidentiality. Our greatest challenge was participant follow-up; however, this improved with the help of a full-time Mommies Program nurse. Our future aim is to increase project awareness and extend the educational research.
Keywords: pregnancy; addiction; opioids; OUD; counseling.
In 2012 more than 259 million prescriptions for opioids were written in the United States, which was a 200% increase since 1998.1 Since the early 2000s, admissions to opioid substance abuse programs and the death rate from opioids have quadrupled.2-4 Specifically, the rate of heroin use increased more than 300% from 2010 to 2014.5 Opioid use in pregnancy has also escalated in recent years, with a 3- to 4-fold increase from 2000 to 2009 and with 4 in 1000 deliveries being complicated by opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2011.6-8
Between 2000 and 2014, the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 24%, making it the only industrialized nation with a maternal mortality rate that is rising rather than falling.9 The Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force found that between 2012 and 2015 drug overdose was the leading cause of maternal death in the period from delivery to 365 days postpartum, and it has increased dramatically since 2010.10,11
In addition, maternal mortality reviews in several states have identified substance use as a major risk factor for pregnancy-associated deaths.12,13 In Texas between 2012 and 2015, opioids were found in 58% of maternal drug overdoses.10 In 2007, 22.8% of women who were enrolled in Medicaid programs in 46 states filled an opioid prescription during pregnancy.14 Additionally, the rising prevalence of opioid use in pregnancy has led to a sharp increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), rising from 1.5 cases per 1000 hospital births in 1999 to 6.0 per 1000 hospital births in 2013.15 Unsurprisingly, states with the highest rates of opioid prescribing also have the highest rates of NAS.16
Methadone combined with counseling and behavioral therapy has been the standard of care for the treatment of OUD in pregnancy since the 1970s. Methadone treatment prevents opioid withdrawal symptoms and increases adherence to prenatal care.17 One of the largest methadone treatment clinics in the San Antonio, TX, area is the Center for Health Care Services (CHCS). University Health System in San Antonio (UHS) has established a clinic called The Mommies Program, where mothers addicted to opioids can receive prenatal care by a dedicated physician, registered nurse, and a certified nurse midwife, who work in collaboration with the CHCS methadone clinic. Pregnant patients with OUD in pregnancy are concurrently enrolled in the Mommies Program and receive prenatal care through UHS and methadone treatment and counseling through CHCS. The continuity effort aims to increase prenatal care rates and adherence to methadone treatment.
Once mothers are off illicit opioids and on methadone, it is essential to discuss breastfeeding with them, as many mothers addicted to illicit opioids may have been told that they should not be breastfeeding. However, breastfeeding should be encouraged in women who are stable on methadone if they are not using illicit drugs and do not have other contraindications, regardless of maternal methadone dose, since the transfer of methadone into breast milk is minimal.18-20 Breastfeeding is beneficial in women taking methadone and has been associated with decreased severity of NAS symptoms, decreased need for pharmacotherapy, and a shorter hospital stay for the baby.21 In addition, breastfeeding contributes to the development of an attachment between mother and infant, while also providing the infant with natural immunity. Women should be counseled about the need to stop breastfeeding in the event of a relapse.22
Finally, the postpartum period represents a time of increased stressors, such as loss of sleep, child protective services involvement, and frustration with constant demands from new baby. For mothers with addiction, this is an especially sensitive time, as the stressors may be exacerbated by their new sobriety and a sudden end to the motivation they experienced from pregnancy.23 Therefore, early and frequent postpartum care with methadone dose evaluation is essential in order to decrease drug relapse and screen for postpartum depression in detail, since patients with a history of drug use are at increased risk of postpartum depression.
In 2017 medical students at UT Health Long School of Medicine in San Antonio created a project to educate women about OUD in pregnancy and provide motivational incentives for sustained abstinence; this project has continued each year since. Students provide education about methadone treatment and the dangers of using illicit opioids during and after pregnancy. Students especially focus on educating patients on the key problem areas in the literature, such as overdose, NAS, breastfeeding, postpartum substance use, and postpartum depression.
Methods
From October 2018 to February 2020, a total of 15 medical students volunteered between 1 and 20 times at the Mommies Program clinic, which was held once or twice per week from 8
The only inclusion criteria for participating in the educational intervention and survey was participants had to be 18 years of age or older and enrolled in the Mommies Program. Patients who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate completed a pre-survey administered by the students during the patient’s initial prenatal visit (Figure 2). This survey collected baseline information about the patient’s history with opioid use and their current knowledge of methadone treatment, NAS, legal aspects of drug use disclosure, and drug testing prior to the education portion of the encounter. After the pre-survey was administered, students spent 30 minutes reviewing the correct answers of the survey with the patients by utilizing the standardized handout to help patients understand details of methadone and opioid use in pregnancy (Figure 1). The post-survey was administered by a student once patients entered the third trimester to assess whether the education session increased patients’ knowledge of these topics.
At the time patients completed the post-survey, they received a Baby Bag as well as education regarding each item in the bag. The aim of distributing Baby Bags was to relieve some possible postnatal stressors and educate the patients about infant care. Items included in the bag were diapers, wipes, bottles, clothes, and swaddles. Prenatal vitamins were added in January 2020, as many patients struggle to afford vitamins if they are not currently covered by Medicaid or have other barriers. The Baby Bag items were purchased through a Community Service Learning grant through UT Health San Antonio.
Results
Of 68 women enrolled in the Mommies Program during the intervention period, 33 completed the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Even though all patients enrolled in the program met the inclusion criteria, patients were not included in the educational program for multiple reasons, including refusal to participate, poor clinic follow-up, or lack of students to collect surveys. However, all patients who completed the pre-survey did complete the post-survey. In the pre-survey, only 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone. In the post-survey, 97% knew it safe to breastfeed. Nearly half (48%) reported being very motivated to quit opioids before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. In the pre-survey, 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so. Also, all participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety.
Discussion
Questions assessed during the educational surveys revolved around patients’ knowledge of the intricacies, legally and physiologically, of methadone treatment for OUD, as well as beneficial aspects for patients and future child health, such as breastfeeding and motivation to quit and stay sober.
It was clear that there was a lack of knowledge and education about breastfeeding, as only 39% of the participants thought that it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone in the pre-survey; in the post survey, this improved to 97%. Students spent a large portion of the educational time going over the safety of breastfeeding for patients on methadone and the many benefits to mother and baby. Students also reviewed breastfeeding with patients every time patients came in for a visit and debunked any falsehoods about the negatives of breastfeeding while on methadone. This is another testament to the benefits of reinforcement around patient education.
The area of trust between provider and patient is essential in all provider-patient relationships. However, in the area of addiction, a trusting bond is especially important, as patients must feel confident and comfortable to disclose every aspect of their lives so the provider can give the best care. It was clear from our initial data that many patients did not feel this trust or understand the legal aspects regarding the provider-patient relationship in the terms of drug use, as the pre-survey shows 76% of patients originally thought they would be reported to authorities if they told their provider they used illegal drugs during pregnancy. This was an enormous issue in the clinic and something that needed to be addressed because, based on these data, we feared many patients would not be honest about using illegal drugs to supplement their methadone if they believed they would be reported to the authorities or even jailed. The medical student education team continually assured patients that their honesty about illegal drug use during pregnancy would not be revealed to the authorities, and also made it clear to patients that it was essential they were honest about illegal drug use so the optimal care could be provided by the team. These discussions were successful, as the post-survey showed that 100% of patients knew they would not be reported to the authorities if they used illegal drugs during the pregnancy. This showed an increase in knowledge, but also suggested an increase in confidence in the provider-patient relationship by patients, which we speculate allowed for a better patient experience, better patient outcomes, and less emotional stress for the patient and provider.
Last, we wanted to study and address the motivation to quit using drugs and stay sober through learning about the effects of opiates and how this motivation was related to pregnancy. A study by Mitchell et al makes clear that pregnancy is a motivation to seek treatment for drug use and to quit,24 and our survey data support these findings, with 48% of patients motivated to quit before they were pregnant and 85% motivated to quit once they knew they were pregnant. In addition, all patients attested on the pre- and post-survey that learning more about opioids would increase their motivation for sobriety. Therefore, we believe education about the use of opioids and other drugs is a strong motivation towards sobriety and should be further studied in methadone treatment and other drugs as well.
We will continue to focus on sobriety postpartum by using the education in pregnancy as a springboard to further postpartum education, as education seems to be very beneficial to future sobriety. In the future, we believe extending the educational program past pregnancy and discussing opioid use and addiction with patients at multiple follow-up visits will be beneficial to patients’ sobriety.
We faced 2 main challenges in implementing this intervention and survey: patients would often miss multiple appointments during their third trimester or would not attend their postpartum visit if they only had 1 prenatal visit; and many clinic sessions had low student attendance because students often had many other responsibilities in medical school and there were only 15 volunteers over the study time. These challenges decreased our post-survey completion rate. However, there has been improvement in follow-up as the project has continued. The Mommies Program now has a full-time registered nurse, and a larger number of medical student teachers have volunteered to attend the clinic. In the future, we aim to increase awareness of our project and the benefits of participation, expand advertising at our medical school to increase student participation, and increase follow-up education in the postpartum period.
Another future direction is to include local, free doula services, which are offered through Catholic Charities in San Antonio. Doulas provide antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum services, which we believe will help our patients through advocacy and support for sobriety during this emotional and stressful time.
Conclusion
Counseled participants were receptive to learning about the effects of OUD and methadone on themselves and their newborn. Participants unanimously stated that learning more about OUD increased their motivation for sobriety. It was also clear that the increased motivation to be sober during pregnancy, as compared to before pregnancy, is an opportunity to help these women take steps to get sober. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge, as we helped debunk falsehoods surrounding breastfeeding while on methadone, and we anticipate this will lead to greater breastfeeding rates for our patients on methadone, although this was not specifically studied. Finally, patients learned about patient-provider confidentiality, which allowed for more open and clear communication with patients so they could be cared for to the greatest degree and trust could remain paramount.
Drug use is a common problem in the health care system, and exposure to patients with addiction is important for medical students in training. We believe that attending the Mommies Program allowed medical students to gain exposure and skills to better help patients with OUD.
Corresponding author: Nicholas Stansbury, MD, Nmstansbury85@gmail.com.
Financial disclosures: None.
From the UT Health Long School of Medicine San Antonio, Texas.
Abstract
Objective: To educate pregnant patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) about the effects of opioids in order to improve understanding and help achieve sustained abstinence.
Methods: The Center for Health Care Services and University Hospital System (UHS) in San Antonio, TX, jointly o
Results: Of 68 women enrolled in the program, 33 completed both the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Nearly half (48%) were very motivated to quit before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. All participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety. Prior to the educational intervention, 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed on methadone, which improved to 97% in the post-survey, and 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health care providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so.
Conclusion: Pregnancy and education about opioids increased patients’ motivation to quit. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge and learned about patient-provider confidentiality. Our greatest challenge was participant follow-up; however, this improved with the help of a full-time Mommies Program nurse. Our future aim is to increase project awareness and extend the educational research.
Keywords: pregnancy; addiction; opioids; OUD; counseling.
In 2012 more than 259 million prescriptions for opioids were written in the United States, which was a 200% increase since 1998.1 Since the early 2000s, admissions to opioid substance abuse programs and the death rate from opioids have quadrupled.2-4 Specifically, the rate of heroin use increased more than 300% from 2010 to 2014.5 Opioid use in pregnancy has also escalated in recent years, with a 3- to 4-fold increase from 2000 to 2009 and with 4 in 1000 deliveries being complicated by opioid use disorder (OUD) in 2011.6-8
Between 2000 and 2014, the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 24%, making it the only industrialized nation with a maternal mortality rate that is rising rather than falling.9 The Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force found that between 2012 and 2015 drug overdose was the leading cause of maternal death in the period from delivery to 365 days postpartum, and it has increased dramatically since 2010.10,11
In addition, maternal mortality reviews in several states have identified substance use as a major risk factor for pregnancy-associated deaths.12,13 In Texas between 2012 and 2015, opioids were found in 58% of maternal drug overdoses.10 In 2007, 22.8% of women who were enrolled in Medicaid programs in 46 states filled an opioid prescription during pregnancy.14 Additionally, the rising prevalence of opioid use in pregnancy has led to a sharp increase in neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), rising from 1.5 cases per 1000 hospital births in 1999 to 6.0 per 1000 hospital births in 2013.15 Unsurprisingly, states with the highest rates of opioid prescribing also have the highest rates of NAS.16
Methadone combined with counseling and behavioral therapy has been the standard of care for the treatment of OUD in pregnancy since the 1970s. Methadone treatment prevents opioid withdrawal symptoms and increases adherence to prenatal care.17 One of the largest methadone treatment clinics in the San Antonio, TX, area is the Center for Health Care Services (CHCS). University Health System in San Antonio (UHS) has established a clinic called The Mommies Program, where mothers addicted to opioids can receive prenatal care by a dedicated physician, registered nurse, and a certified nurse midwife, who work in collaboration with the CHCS methadone clinic. Pregnant patients with OUD in pregnancy are concurrently enrolled in the Mommies Program and receive prenatal care through UHS and methadone treatment and counseling through CHCS. The continuity effort aims to increase prenatal care rates and adherence to methadone treatment.
Once mothers are off illicit opioids and on methadone, it is essential to discuss breastfeeding with them, as many mothers addicted to illicit opioids may have been told that they should not be breastfeeding. However, breastfeeding should be encouraged in women who are stable on methadone if they are not using illicit drugs and do not have other contraindications, regardless of maternal methadone dose, since the transfer of methadone into breast milk is minimal.18-20 Breastfeeding is beneficial in women taking methadone and has been associated with decreased severity of NAS symptoms, decreased need for pharmacotherapy, and a shorter hospital stay for the baby.21 In addition, breastfeeding contributes to the development of an attachment between mother and infant, while also providing the infant with natural immunity. Women should be counseled about the need to stop breastfeeding in the event of a relapse.22
Finally, the postpartum period represents a time of increased stressors, such as loss of sleep, child protective services involvement, and frustration with constant demands from new baby. For mothers with addiction, this is an especially sensitive time, as the stressors may be exacerbated by their new sobriety and a sudden end to the motivation they experienced from pregnancy.23 Therefore, early and frequent postpartum care with methadone dose evaluation is essential in order to decrease drug relapse and screen for postpartum depression in detail, since patients with a history of drug use are at increased risk of postpartum depression.
In 2017 medical students at UT Health Long School of Medicine in San Antonio created a project to educate women about OUD in pregnancy and provide motivational incentives for sustained abstinence; this project has continued each year since. Students provide education about methadone treatment and the dangers of using illicit opioids during and after pregnancy. Students especially focus on educating patients on the key problem areas in the literature, such as overdose, NAS, breastfeeding, postpartum substance use, and postpartum depression.
Methods
From October 2018 to February 2020, a total of 15 medical students volunteered between 1 and 20 times at the Mommies Program clinic, which was held once or twice per week from 8
The only inclusion criteria for participating in the educational intervention and survey was participants had to be 18 years of age or older and enrolled in the Mommies Program. Patients who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate completed a pre-survey administered by the students during the patient’s initial prenatal visit (Figure 2). This survey collected baseline information about the patient’s history with opioid use and their current knowledge of methadone treatment, NAS, legal aspects of drug use disclosure, and drug testing prior to the education portion of the encounter. After the pre-survey was administered, students spent 30 minutes reviewing the correct answers of the survey with the patients by utilizing the standardized handout to help patients understand details of methadone and opioid use in pregnancy (Figure 1). The post-survey was administered by a student once patients entered the third trimester to assess whether the education session increased patients’ knowledge of these topics.
At the time patients completed the post-survey, they received a Baby Bag as well as education regarding each item in the bag. The aim of distributing Baby Bags was to relieve some possible postnatal stressors and educate the patients about infant care. Items included in the bag were diapers, wipes, bottles, clothes, and swaddles. Prenatal vitamins were added in January 2020, as many patients struggle to afford vitamins if they are not currently covered by Medicaid or have other barriers. The Baby Bag items were purchased through a Community Service Learning grant through UT Health San Antonio.
Results
Of 68 women enrolled in the Mommies Program during the intervention period, 33 completed the pre-survey and the post-survey (48.5%). Even though all patients enrolled in the program met the inclusion criteria, patients were not included in the educational program for multiple reasons, including refusal to participate, poor clinic follow-up, or lack of students to collect surveys. However, all patients who completed the pre-survey did complete the post-survey. In the pre-survey, only 39% of participants knew it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone. In the post-survey, 97% knew it safe to breastfeed. Nearly half (48%) reported being very motivated to quit opioids before pregnancy, but 85% were very motivated to quit once pregnant. In the pre-survey, 76% incorrectly thought they would be reported to authorities by their health providers if they used illegal drugs during pregnancy, while in the post-survey, 100% knew they would not be reported for doing so. Also, all participants said learning more about the effects of opiates would increase motivation for sobriety.
Discussion
Questions assessed during the educational surveys revolved around patients’ knowledge of the intricacies, legally and physiologically, of methadone treatment for OUD, as well as beneficial aspects for patients and future child health, such as breastfeeding and motivation to quit and stay sober.
It was clear that there was a lack of knowledge and education about breastfeeding, as only 39% of the participants thought that it was safe to breastfeed while on methadone in the pre-survey; in the post survey, this improved to 97%. Students spent a large portion of the educational time going over the safety of breastfeeding for patients on methadone and the many benefits to mother and baby. Students also reviewed breastfeeding with patients every time patients came in for a visit and debunked any falsehoods about the negatives of breastfeeding while on methadone. This is another testament to the benefits of reinforcement around patient education.
The area of trust between provider and patient is essential in all provider-patient relationships. However, in the area of addiction, a trusting bond is especially important, as patients must feel confident and comfortable to disclose every aspect of their lives so the provider can give the best care. It was clear from our initial data that many patients did not feel this trust or understand the legal aspects regarding the provider-patient relationship in the terms of drug use, as the pre-survey shows 76% of patients originally thought they would be reported to authorities if they told their provider they used illegal drugs during pregnancy. This was an enormous issue in the clinic and something that needed to be addressed because, based on these data, we feared many patients would not be honest about using illegal drugs to supplement their methadone if they believed they would be reported to the authorities or even jailed. The medical student education team continually assured patients that their honesty about illegal drug use during pregnancy would not be revealed to the authorities, and also made it clear to patients that it was essential they were honest about illegal drug use so the optimal care could be provided by the team. These discussions were successful, as the post-survey showed that 100% of patients knew they would not be reported to the authorities if they used illegal drugs during the pregnancy. This showed an increase in knowledge, but also suggested an increase in confidence in the provider-patient relationship by patients, which we speculate allowed for a better patient experience, better patient outcomes, and less emotional stress for the patient and provider.
Last, we wanted to study and address the motivation to quit using drugs and stay sober through learning about the effects of opiates and how this motivation was related to pregnancy. A study by Mitchell et al makes clear that pregnancy is a motivation to seek treatment for drug use and to quit,24 and our survey data support these findings, with 48% of patients motivated to quit before they were pregnant and 85% motivated to quit once they knew they were pregnant. In addition, all patients attested on the pre- and post-survey that learning more about opioids would increase their motivation for sobriety. Therefore, we believe education about the use of opioids and other drugs is a strong motivation towards sobriety and should be further studied in methadone treatment and other drugs as well.
We will continue to focus on sobriety postpartum by using the education in pregnancy as a springboard to further postpartum education, as education seems to be very beneficial to future sobriety. In the future, we believe extending the educational program past pregnancy and discussing opioid use and addiction with patients at multiple follow-up visits will be beneficial to patients’ sobriety.
We faced 2 main challenges in implementing this intervention and survey: patients would often miss multiple appointments during their third trimester or would not attend their postpartum visit if they only had 1 prenatal visit; and many clinic sessions had low student attendance because students often had many other responsibilities in medical school and there were only 15 volunteers over the study time. These challenges decreased our post-survey completion rate. However, there has been improvement in follow-up as the project has continued. The Mommies Program now has a full-time registered nurse, and a larger number of medical student teachers have volunteered to attend the clinic. In the future, we aim to increase awareness of our project and the benefits of participation, expand advertising at our medical school to increase student participation, and increase follow-up education in the postpartum period.
Another future direction is to include local, free doula services, which are offered through Catholic Charities in San Antonio. Doulas provide antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum services, which we believe will help our patients through advocacy and support for sobriety during this emotional and stressful time.
Conclusion
Counseled participants were receptive to learning about the effects of OUD and methadone on themselves and their newborn. Participants unanimously stated that learning more about OUD increased their motivation for sobriety. It was also clear that the increased motivation to be sober during pregnancy, as compared to before pregnancy, is an opportunity to help these women take steps to get sober. Patients also advanced their breastfeeding knowledge, as we helped debunk falsehoods surrounding breastfeeding while on methadone, and we anticipate this will lead to greater breastfeeding rates for our patients on methadone, although this was not specifically studied. Finally, patients learned about patient-provider confidentiality, which allowed for more open and clear communication with patients so they could be cared for to the greatest degree and trust could remain paramount.
Drug use is a common problem in the health care system, and exposure to patients with addiction is important for medical students in training. We believe that attending the Mommies Program allowed medical students to gain exposure and skills to better help patients with OUD.
Corresponding author: Nicholas Stansbury, MD, Nmstansbury85@gmail.com.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: where you live makes a difference. CDC website. www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/opioid-prescribing. Accessed October 28, 2020.
2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4760, DAWN Series D-39. Rockville (MD): SAMHSA; 2013. www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
3. Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between nonmedical prescription-opioid use and heroin use. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:154-63.
4. National Center for Health Statistics. NCHS data on drug-poisoning deaths. NCHS Factsheet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet-drug-poisoning-H.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
5. National Institute on Drug Abuse. America’s addiction to opioids: heroin and prescription drug abuse. Bethesda (MD): NIDA; 2014. www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse. Accessed October 28, 2020.
6. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011 Contract No.: HHS Publication no. (SMA) 11–4658.
7. Maeda A, Bateman BT, Clancy CR, et al. Opioid abuse and dependence during pregnancy: temporal trends and obstetrical outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:1158-1165.
8. Whiteman VE, Salemi JL, Mogos MF, et al. Maternal opioid drug use during pregnancy and its impact on perinatal morbidity, mortality, and the costs of medical care in the United States. J Pregnancy. 2014;2014:1-8
9. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm#trends. Accessed February 4, 2020.
10. Macdorman MF, Declercq E, Cabral H, Morton C. Recent increases in the U.S. maternal mortality rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:447-455.
11. Texas Health and Human Services. Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force and Department of State Health Services Joint Biennial Report, September 2018. www.dshs.texas.gov/legislative/2018-Reports/MMMTFJointReport2018.pdf
12. Virginia Department of Health. Pregnancy-associated deaths from drug overdose in Virginia, 1999-2007: a report from the Virginia Maternal Mortality Review Team. Richmond, VA: VDH; 2015. www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Final-Pregnancy-Associated-Deaths-Due-to-Drug-Overdose.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
13. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Maryland maternal mortality review 2016 annual report. Baltimore: DHMH; 2016. https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/Documents/Maryland-Maternal-Mortality-Review-2016-Report.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
14. Desai RJ, Hernandez-Diaz S, Bateman BT, Huybrechts KF. Increase in prescription opioid use during pregnancy among Medicaid-enrolled women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:997-1002.
15. Reddy UM, Davis JM, Ren Z, et al. Opioid use in pregnancy, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and childhood outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 2017;72:703-705.
16. Patrick SW, Davis MM, Lehmann CU, Cooper WO. Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012. J Perinatol. 2015;35:650-655.
17. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction during pregnancy. In: Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction in opioid treatment programs. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 43. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2005:211-224.
18. Wojnar-Horton RE, Kristensen JH, Yapp P, et al. Methadone distribution and excretion into breast milk of clients in a methadone maintenance programme. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:543-547.
19. Reece-Stremtan S, Marinelli KA. ABM clinical protocol #21: guidelines for breastfeeding and substance use or substance use disorder, revised 2015. Breastfeed Med. 2015;10:135-141.
20. Sachs HC. The transfer of drugs and therapeutics into human breast milk: an update on selected topics. Committee on Drugs. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e796-809.
21. Bagley SM, Wachman EM, Holland E, Brogly SB. Review of the assessment and management of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014;9:19.
22. Opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 711. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:488-489.
23. Gopman S. Prenatal and postpartum care of women with substance use disorders. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2014;41:213-228.
24. Mitchell M, Severtson S, Latimer W. Pregnancy and race/ethnicity as predictors of motivation for drug treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2008;34:397-404.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioid painkiller prescribing: where you live makes a difference. CDC website. www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/opioid-prescribing. Accessed October 28, 2020.
2. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4760, DAWN Series D-39. Rockville (MD): SAMHSA; 2013. www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
3. Compton WM, Jones CM, Baldwin GT. Relationship between nonmedical prescription-opioid use and heroin use. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:154-63.
4. National Center for Health Statistics. NCHS data on drug-poisoning deaths. NCHS Factsheet. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet-drug-poisoning-H.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
5. National Institute on Drug Abuse. America’s addiction to opioids: heroin and prescription drug abuse. Bethesda (MD): NIDA; 2014. www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse. Accessed October 28, 2020.
6. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2011 Contract No.: HHS Publication no. (SMA) 11–4658.
7. Maeda A, Bateman BT, Clancy CR, et al. Opioid abuse and dependence during pregnancy: temporal trends and obstetrical outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:1158-1165.
8. Whiteman VE, Salemi JL, Mogos MF, et al. Maternal opioid drug use during pregnancy and its impact on perinatal morbidity, mortality, and the costs of medical care in the United States. J Pregnancy. 2014;2014:1-8
9. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm#trends. Accessed February 4, 2020.
10. Macdorman MF, Declercq E, Cabral H, Morton C. Recent increases in the U.S. maternal mortality rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:447-455.
11. Texas Health and Human Services. Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force and Department of State Health Services Joint Biennial Report, September 2018. www.dshs.texas.gov/legislative/2018-Reports/MMMTFJointReport2018.pdf
12. Virginia Department of Health. Pregnancy-associated deaths from drug overdose in Virginia, 1999-2007: a report from the Virginia Maternal Mortality Review Team. Richmond, VA: VDH; 2015. www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/18/2016/04/Final-Pregnancy-Associated-Deaths-Due-to-Drug-Overdose.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
13. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Maryland maternal mortality review 2016 annual report. Baltimore: DHMH; 2016. https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/Documents/Maryland-Maternal-Mortality-Review-2016-Report.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2020.
14. Desai RJ, Hernandez-Diaz S, Bateman BT, Huybrechts KF. Increase in prescription opioid use during pregnancy among Medicaid-enrolled women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:997-1002.
15. Reddy UM, Davis JM, Ren Z, et al. Opioid use in pregnancy, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and childhood outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 2017;72:703-705.
16. Patrick SW, Davis MM, Lehmann CU, Cooper WO. Increasing incidence and geographic distribution of neonatal abstinence syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012. J Perinatol. 2015;35:650-655.
17. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction during pregnancy. In: Medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction in opioid treatment programs. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, No. 43. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2005:211-224.
18. Wojnar-Horton RE, Kristensen JH, Yapp P, et al. Methadone distribution and excretion into breast milk of clients in a methadone maintenance programme. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:543-547.
19. Reece-Stremtan S, Marinelli KA. ABM clinical protocol #21: guidelines for breastfeeding and substance use or substance use disorder, revised 2015. Breastfeed Med. 2015;10:135-141.
20. Sachs HC. The transfer of drugs and therapeutics into human breast milk: an update on selected topics. Committee on Drugs. Pediatrics. 2013;132:e796-809.
21. Bagley SM, Wachman EM, Holland E, Brogly SB. Review of the assessment and management of neonatal abstinence syndrome. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2014;9:19.
22. Opioid use and opioid use disorder in pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 711. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:488-489.
23. Gopman S. Prenatal and postpartum care of women with substance use disorders. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2014;41:213-228.
24. Mitchell M, Severtson S, Latimer W. Pregnancy and race/ethnicity as predictors of motivation for drug treatment. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2008;34:397-404.
Facing systemic racism in health care: Inequities in medical education
Finding inspiration among life’s challenges
Barbara Levy, MD: I am fortunate to have met Pierre serendipitously at a training that we were both attending and was impressed by Dr. Johnson’s life story, his passion and commitment, and his dedication—not only to his personal career but also to raising up other young men of color by trying to break down barriers that face them. His life story highlights those areas of systemic and structural problems that all of us together need to address if we are going to make any progress.
Pierre Johnson, MD: Thank you, Barbara. A little about myself: I am a board-certified ObGyn, and I specialize in minimally invasive surgery. I was born on the South side of Chicago, experiencing gang violence, drugs, and substandard, underserved schools. Long story short, I had a very rough upbringing. I had a single mom and several different issues at home. I am the oldest of 5 siblings, and life was tough.
But I knew that I wanted to do something different with my life. I saw that there was a need in my community as far as health care was concerned, in particular women’s health and childbirth. I knew early on that I wanted to be an ObGyn, and the reason had a lot to do with The Cosby Show. It was the only example of a positive, successful Black man that I saw. No one graduated from college in my family. There weren’t any models of young Black excellence around me. Saying that I wanted to be a doctor planted a seed. I was 9 when my mom became pregnant with my first sibling, and it was fascinating to me. The physiology of pregnancy, and eventually childbirth, was extremely fascinating to me; it set me off on my journey to be an ObGyn.
As I got older, things didn’t get any easier. I went to high school in one of the toughest areas on the South side of Chicago. Gang violence, and violence in and of itself, were all around me, but I was able to stay focused. I went on to Xavier University in Louisiana.
Dr. Levy: There are some important things that I learned from your book and from talking to you at our first meeting. Your mom’s ObGyn, when she was pregnant with your next youngest sibling, was also a Black ObGyn. He took some time to take you under wing?
Dr. Johnson: He did. My mom’s ObGyn was a Black man. Other than The Cosby Show, that’s the only time I saw something like that. When I spoke to him, he really took the time to answer my questions and show me that he was like me; he wasn’t just a far-off mythical person, or something that I could not obtain.
Continue to: Seeing is believing when it comes to success...
Seeing is believing when it comes to success
Dr. Levy: Do you think it was important to have a role model who wasn’t a sports star?
Dr. Johnson: If you can’t see it, you can’t achieve it. He took his time to really talk to me, and it’s the little things for kids that go a long way in their life experience. I still have a relationship with him to this day. How he handled me as a kid made me realize that this is something that I could do. That was extremely important for me.
Dr. Levy: One of the structural things I think we need to point out is that the ability to see yourself as someone successful is critical. When we see 1,000 images a day and they are all White, and they are all so different from where we are that it gets incorporated into our sense of being. I think that’s really difficult for those of us of with privilege to understand what that privilege is.
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely, and I’ll even go further. In residency, 2 White females were my classmates, and both of their parents were doctors. They had grandparents who were doctors. My mom was addicted to drugs; my father was not around. They had been talking medicine since they were 5. You have to make things equitable, but in medicine it’s really not equitable. In medicine, what we don’t realize is that there is an importance for all aspects of someone’s upbringing and environment, and it’s not just what they can regurgitate on a standardized test. If a patient can’t relate to you and tell you what is wrong with them, how can you adequately treat them?
Dr. Levy: Even if they are trying to tell me, but I can’t hear it because I don’t have the language and I don’t have the background. There are really good data to show, in fact, that Black male physicians do a better job at engaging Black men to manage their hypertension.1 When we look at the inequities in birth outcomes for women of color, indigenous women and Black women, there’s evidence that providers who come from a similar background do a better job.
Dr. Johnson: There was the study of Black infants that just came out about them dying at a 3-time higher rate in non-Black physicians’ hands.2 These things need to be recognized. They need to be discussed, and they need to be identified as issues and then, realistically, we need to start talking about solutions, not get offended by what actual statistics are saying.
Foundational inequities in education
Dr. Levy: To address some of the barriers that you faced: I know that you went to a high school that was not geared toward pushing students into professional careers. Your colleagues, however, had educations that prepared them for the standardized tests and other things that they would face academically.
Dr. Johnson: People think I am kidding when I say it, but when I went into college, I didn’t know what a periodic table was. I saw it, but I had no idea what these things meant. I didn’t have any sciences or any AP classes in high school. I did well, but grades are smoke and mirrors. The true test of medicine comes with testing. From the MCATs to the boards, every step of the way there is a standardized test.
Knowledge is something that you can obtain, but test taking is a cultivated skill that happens from a very early age. Trying to teach an adult or someone in their late teens a skill that they should have learned as a kid is difficult. For me, I did not have that, so I had to program myself. I had to learn how to fundamentally take tests as an adult, where most people understand how to do that going into college and professional school.
Dr. Levy: I was impressed with your resilience. I think all of us as human beings, if we fail a test, we take it personally and think it’s about our lack of knowledge. One of the insights that you came to was that failure on those things was not that you didn’t study hard enough. In fact, you probably studied 4 times harder than most other people. You had the knowledge. Being able to get that knowledge into a standardized structured test score was the huge challenge for you.
Dr. Johnson: That’s it. I can remember taking the MCAT, and if you looked at the step 1 book, I could regurgitate to you everything on that page. However, it’s not a test about do you know it or not. It’s an understanding of the English language and how to break things down to make things fit into particular scenarios.
Continue to: A college experience focused on growth and exposure...
A college experience focused on growth and exposure
Dr. Levy: I was impressed by the distinction between your experience at Xavier University where there was a lot of support and guidance and help in your premed program, and what happened to you when you hit medical school.
Dr. Johnson: Xavier University in Louisiana is the number 1 institution in the country for getting minorities into professional school. They understand that they have kids that are brilliant but underprepared, and just have not had the background to actually tackle some of these tough curriculums. I always had good grades in school. But by not being challenged, I didn’t know what I didn’t really know. So now that I was seeing biology, chemistry for the first time, and trying to tackle it; there’s a failure point. I didn’t know how to take tests, and I didn’t know how to study properly. The harder I tried, the worse things got for me.
Xavier has seen that story a multitude of times. If I went to a bigger or predominantly White university, a counselor would have told me, “Well, medicine’s maybe not for you. You can’t handle a premed curriculum.” Instead, I said, “Listen, I’m studying. I’m doing all of these things, and I’m not hacking it.” And they broke it down: “Let’s get you into study groups with kids that have had these type of AP classes before. We’ll have you watch how they study,” and everything started to click. That facilitation of how to adjust to this curriculum was a godsend. It’s the only reason I’m here. I am a prime example of being brilliant enough to be able to do it, but needing the infrastructure and a system set up.
Dr. Levy: There’s a great book by Carol Dweck called Mindset that talks about education of young kids and putting them into silos so early in life; the brilliant kids go into the AP courses and the rest are labeled as inadequate. It’s assumed in a fixed mindset based on their heredity and IQ, and not based on the fact that they have not been exposed to the right things.
Xavier was growing you into the man who could, in fact, do all of those things. I think that is one of the systemic and structural issues that we have—that fixed mindset that frames a kid who is not succeeding as therefore unable to succeed, as opposed to framing that child as not having the correct tools.
New tribulations of medical school
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. I think what Xavier did for me is to at least let me understand what I needed to do, how to comprehend and retain information, which I never had been exposed to before. Those years were very important to establishing a foundation. When going to medical school, it was like, “There’s no more excuses. What could be the problem now?” Well, now let’s talk about taking tests—a whole different skill. Xavier focused on getting me to understand how to structure my thought process and knowledge base. In medical school I had to apply those skills (because if you can’t apply them, there’s no fit).
My second through fourth year of medical school, I was the only African-American kid in my class. I was spending 20-hour days sometimes just studying, trying to overcompensate by knowing as much as I possibly could and thinking that would propel me from the test-taking standpoint. Even though I didn’t have a lot of classmates in medical school that looked like me, I did have mentors that looked similarly, who really saw potential in me. Dr. Frederick Horvath, a nephrologist in Peoria said, “What are you doing? I want you to get out of these books, and let’s go out to lunch.”
He ended up buying me some instrumental books, really talked to me, listening to my background and understanding how driven I was as a person. He took me under his wing for the rest of medical school and said, “This is how you navigate through these spaces. Yes, you need to have a fund of knowledge to be able to take these tests, but you need to start understanding how to apply it to these questions.” I’m forever grateful to Dr. Horvath for doing that because it was a point in time where I was lost and struggling.
Continue to: Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on...
Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on
Dr. Levy: You talk about the systemic and pervasive racism that was on the wards when you hit them in fourth year. If you don’t mind sharing just a little bit of that, it would help people reading this to have a better understanding of the kinds of barriers that are out there.
Dr. Johnson: Even when I talk about it today, it bothers me.
I went to medical school in Peoria, Illinois, not far from the home of the Ku Klux Klan. At that time, once you got out of Chicago it was a very brutal place, with systemic racism throughout. I was a young Black kid going through a process that not many young Black kids from the South side of Chicago go through, and you had people who had never seen anyone like me. When I was going through my clinical rotations, I knew what I was up against. I was dressed “to the T” every day, arriving early, leaving late, trying to answer questions. I would look at the evaluations, and they would be disparaging. I would look at my counterparts, how their evaluations were, and how people would respond to them, and it would be completely different.
Surgery was the part of ObGyn that I really grew to love more than anything, even more than obstetrics. When general surgery came, I wanted to take it very seriously and learn as much as I possibly could. From the beginning, I knew there was a problem because the chief resident, an older White man, wouldn’t look me in the eye or talk to me. He would make disparaging remarks. The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was when I was in the operating room transporting patients, just like a medical student did, and he came up behind me and said, “You know, Pierre, this is where a small mind and a strong back come into play.” For me, it took me to a place where I had to corral my emotions and thoughts because I just wanted to lash out and just tell him how racist and horrible that was for him to say that to me. I explained this to the powers that be, the director of the department, and they basically blew it off to the side.
When it came down to the end of the evaluation period, I passed with flying colors. But they gave me an incomplete because of that chief resident and his remarks on my evaluations. He had 3 pages of report about me as a person and as a student. He said that he had difficulty in expressing his opinions about me because of possible cultural biases that he may have had. He put “cultural biases” in an evaluation, and they looked at that and said that was enough for me to have to remediate my time. I was required to do an extra month in Pontiac, Illinois, which is even more rural than Peoria, because of a racist person that did not give me a fair opportunity because I was Black.
Like everything else in life, it was a learning experience. It’s why I fight so hard today. It’s why I’m so passionate about equity, not only in medicine but also in all aspects of society. It shows why we have police brutality and Black men dying in the streets. It shows how this happens because there are cultural and implicit biases that play out in every part of life, and we are not honest about it. Until we are honest about it and until we say that this is happening and there is something that needs to be done to address it, it’s going to continue to happen. That is my fight.
Exposing the unspoken power struggle
Dr. Levy: I couldn’t agree more. Attributing things like that to the individual, where you talk about a White man in power and a power structure that didn’t literally physically beat you but did beat you into submission. You talk about how to succeed in medical school, and how you had to suck it up and submit to something that was incredibly unfair. You understood, you were old enough, mature enough, to understand that if you fought back, you were going to lose. The only opportunity you had was to submit to that inequity and push forward.
Dr. Johnson: When I did try to fight, the chair of the department told me that either I accept the consequences or I would not graduate from medical school and be forced to do another year. That struck a chord with me. I think that happens a lot in our society, and it needs to be exposed.
Past experiences reflected in today’s society
Dr. Levy: Can you talk about what you faced in your ObGyn residency in terms of the systemic pushback, people not taking your orders, people questioning you. I know that I have heard that a great deal, and I experienced that myself as a woman.
Dr. Johnson: We look at the things that are happening now, everything from George Floyd’s murder to Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. These things are 10 years past when I first started residency. The year before I started residency, there was a noose hanging on the capitol lawn of Springfield, Illinois’ capital city. There’s systemic racism and hatred there. When I first started on the wards of my first year of ObGyn, again, I was the very first Black resident of my program’s history. Nobody could relate to me.
I went from a year-long general surgery internship at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, to ObGyn residency. In the first 2 months, there were complaints of, “He’s not answering his pages. He’s not being prompt.” I went to my program director and said, “Listen, I have never had one complaint like this. There’s a problem here. And there’s a problem when I’m on the floor: When trying to give orders to nurses, they’re not taking them. I had to tell a couple of nurses, ‘I’m Dr. Johnson. Don’t call me by my first name, especially not in front of patients.’”
My director was just not hearing me, because the entire scenario was something they had never been exposed to. Systemic racism is real, and unless you experience it, it’s very difficult to accept that it is happening. But biases happen when you are not cognizant. People are used to things a certain way. Things play out in the media that make your mind think a certain way, and you don’t even realize it. You may not even want to be that way.
Continue to: Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity...
Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity
Dr. Levy: One very important point you just made is that we as the system need to be able to recognize those unconscious things, the language that we use, the disparaging remarks, the things that put people down, as well as the things that keep people out of promotion.
There are some interesting data about both race and gender and the language that we use when we write recommendations for people, that we do things unconsciously. The big message to all of us at the end is to open our minds to where those things can occur. For myself, professionally, I keep a list of words that I use when I write recommendations. I measure myself to ensure that I am using the same language for men and women, for Black and White. I think we need to overcome the system and the structure to create real equity—not equality but equity.
It begins with being real about the issues
Dr. Johnson: It’s a bigger problem than the existence of bias and racism. I think these are systemic issues that have been cultivated over centuries that have never been addressed. The true issue is that we deny that these are problems and refuse to talk about it because it makes us uncomfortable. To truly make things more equitable, we have to push our levels of comfort to be able to talk about things in a healthy manner, be open and transparent, and to start to understand how we are thinking about certain things. When you can see it, you can start to implement changes and start to change mentalities and thought processes.
For me, people say, “You don’t look like a doctor.” I get that all the time—because I have tattoos and earrings. I wear my hair in a mohawk. The image of what success looks like has been manifested through our media and culture, and it has imprinted on our minds as to how things are supposed to be. If someone doesn’t fit those molds, we start to shun them out, or we start to exhibit biases against those things. What I am trying to do is change that thought process of what a successful or a professional person looks like. It doesn’t have a look. It is not a White or Black thing. It’s an intellect, a mindset, a way of living. You have to treat every person as an individual and take all the biases out of it and understand where they are coming from and what they have to offer to the profession.
Dr. Levy: I personally was so impressed by you when I met you. I was impressed by the tattoos and the earrings, and my initial response to them was exactly that biased, “Oh, who is this person?” I checked that at the door, listened to you, and was really impressed at your surgical skill, your knowledge, your background. I am really grateful that you have been willing to spend the time to share that with everyone.
Dr. Johnson: Thank you for this discussion.
To watch the full interview between Drs. Levy and Johnson, visit: https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/228507/facing-systemic-racism-health-care-inequities-medical-education. ●
- The Pulse of Perseverance:
Three Black Doctors on Their Journey to Success Pierre Johnson, MD; Maxime Madhere, MD; and Joseph Semien Jr, MD - Mindset:
The New Psychology of Success
Carol S. Dweck
- Benkert R, Peters R, Tate N, et al. Trust of nurse practitioners and physicians among African Americans with hypertension. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20:273-280.
- Greenwood BN, Hardeman RR, Huang L, et al. Physician– patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117:21194-21200.
Dr. Levy is Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University of Medicine and Health Sciences and Principal, The Levy Group LLC, Washington DC. She is a member of the
Dr. Johnson is an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, UChicago Medicine, Illinois.
The authors report no financial relationships related to this article.
Dr. Levy is Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University of Medicine and Health Sciences and Principal, The Levy Group LLC, Washington DC. She is a member of the
Dr. Johnson is an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, UChicago Medicine, Illinois.
The authors report no financial relationships related to this article.
Dr. Levy is Clinical Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University of Medicine and Health Sciences and Principal, The Levy Group LLC, Washington DC. She is a member of the
Dr. Johnson is an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, UChicago Medicine, Illinois.
The authors report no financial relationships related to this article.
Finding inspiration among life’s challenges
Barbara Levy, MD: I am fortunate to have met Pierre serendipitously at a training that we were both attending and was impressed by Dr. Johnson’s life story, his passion and commitment, and his dedication—not only to his personal career but also to raising up other young men of color by trying to break down barriers that face them. His life story highlights those areas of systemic and structural problems that all of us together need to address if we are going to make any progress.
Pierre Johnson, MD: Thank you, Barbara. A little about myself: I am a board-certified ObGyn, and I specialize in minimally invasive surgery. I was born on the South side of Chicago, experiencing gang violence, drugs, and substandard, underserved schools. Long story short, I had a very rough upbringing. I had a single mom and several different issues at home. I am the oldest of 5 siblings, and life was tough.
But I knew that I wanted to do something different with my life. I saw that there was a need in my community as far as health care was concerned, in particular women’s health and childbirth. I knew early on that I wanted to be an ObGyn, and the reason had a lot to do with The Cosby Show. It was the only example of a positive, successful Black man that I saw. No one graduated from college in my family. There weren’t any models of young Black excellence around me. Saying that I wanted to be a doctor planted a seed. I was 9 when my mom became pregnant with my first sibling, and it was fascinating to me. The physiology of pregnancy, and eventually childbirth, was extremely fascinating to me; it set me off on my journey to be an ObGyn.
As I got older, things didn’t get any easier. I went to high school in one of the toughest areas on the South side of Chicago. Gang violence, and violence in and of itself, were all around me, but I was able to stay focused. I went on to Xavier University in Louisiana.
Dr. Levy: There are some important things that I learned from your book and from talking to you at our first meeting. Your mom’s ObGyn, when she was pregnant with your next youngest sibling, was also a Black ObGyn. He took some time to take you under wing?
Dr. Johnson: He did. My mom’s ObGyn was a Black man. Other than The Cosby Show, that’s the only time I saw something like that. When I spoke to him, he really took the time to answer my questions and show me that he was like me; he wasn’t just a far-off mythical person, or something that I could not obtain.
Continue to: Seeing is believing when it comes to success...
Seeing is believing when it comes to success
Dr. Levy: Do you think it was important to have a role model who wasn’t a sports star?
Dr. Johnson: If you can’t see it, you can’t achieve it. He took his time to really talk to me, and it’s the little things for kids that go a long way in their life experience. I still have a relationship with him to this day. How he handled me as a kid made me realize that this is something that I could do. That was extremely important for me.
Dr. Levy: One of the structural things I think we need to point out is that the ability to see yourself as someone successful is critical. When we see 1,000 images a day and they are all White, and they are all so different from where we are that it gets incorporated into our sense of being. I think that’s really difficult for those of us of with privilege to understand what that privilege is.
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely, and I’ll even go further. In residency, 2 White females were my classmates, and both of their parents were doctors. They had grandparents who were doctors. My mom was addicted to drugs; my father was not around. They had been talking medicine since they were 5. You have to make things equitable, but in medicine it’s really not equitable. In medicine, what we don’t realize is that there is an importance for all aspects of someone’s upbringing and environment, and it’s not just what they can regurgitate on a standardized test. If a patient can’t relate to you and tell you what is wrong with them, how can you adequately treat them?
Dr. Levy: Even if they are trying to tell me, but I can’t hear it because I don’t have the language and I don’t have the background. There are really good data to show, in fact, that Black male physicians do a better job at engaging Black men to manage their hypertension.1 When we look at the inequities in birth outcomes for women of color, indigenous women and Black women, there’s evidence that providers who come from a similar background do a better job.
Dr. Johnson: There was the study of Black infants that just came out about them dying at a 3-time higher rate in non-Black physicians’ hands.2 These things need to be recognized. They need to be discussed, and they need to be identified as issues and then, realistically, we need to start talking about solutions, not get offended by what actual statistics are saying.
Foundational inequities in education
Dr. Levy: To address some of the barriers that you faced: I know that you went to a high school that was not geared toward pushing students into professional careers. Your colleagues, however, had educations that prepared them for the standardized tests and other things that they would face academically.
Dr. Johnson: People think I am kidding when I say it, but when I went into college, I didn’t know what a periodic table was. I saw it, but I had no idea what these things meant. I didn’t have any sciences or any AP classes in high school. I did well, but grades are smoke and mirrors. The true test of medicine comes with testing. From the MCATs to the boards, every step of the way there is a standardized test.
Knowledge is something that you can obtain, but test taking is a cultivated skill that happens from a very early age. Trying to teach an adult or someone in their late teens a skill that they should have learned as a kid is difficult. For me, I did not have that, so I had to program myself. I had to learn how to fundamentally take tests as an adult, where most people understand how to do that going into college and professional school.
Dr. Levy: I was impressed with your resilience. I think all of us as human beings, if we fail a test, we take it personally and think it’s about our lack of knowledge. One of the insights that you came to was that failure on those things was not that you didn’t study hard enough. In fact, you probably studied 4 times harder than most other people. You had the knowledge. Being able to get that knowledge into a standardized structured test score was the huge challenge for you.
Dr. Johnson: That’s it. I can remember taking the MCAT, and if you looked at the step 1 book, I could regurgitate to you everything on that page. However, it’s not a test about do you know it or not. It’s an understanding of the English language and how to break things down to make things fit into particular scenarios.
Continue to: A college experience focused on growth and exposure...
A college experience focused on growth and exposure
Dr. Levy: I was impressed by the distinction between your experience at Xavier University where there was a lot of support and guidance and help in your premed program, and what happened to you when you hit medical school.
Dr. Johnson: Xavier University in Louisiana is the number 1 institution in the country for getting minorities into professional school. They understand that they have kids that are brilliant but underprepared, and just have not had the background to actually tackle some of these tough curriculums. I always had good grades in school. But by not being challenged, I didn’t know what I didn’t really know. So now that I was seeing biology, chemistry for the first time, and trying to tackle it; there’s a failure point. I didn’t know how to take tests, and I didn’t know how to study properly. The harder I tried, the worse things got for me.
Xavier has seen that story a multitude of times. If I went to a bigger or predominantly White university, a counselor would have told me, “Well, medicine’s maybe not for you. You can’t handle a premed curriculum.” Instead, I said, “Listen, I’m studying. I’m doing all of these things, and I’m not hacking it.” And they broke it down: “Let’s get you into study groups with kids that have had these type of AP classes before. We’ll have you watch how they study,” and everything started to click. That facilitation of how to adjust to this curriculum was a godsend. It’s the only reason I’m here. I am a prime example of being brilliant enough to be able to do it, but needing the infrastructure and a system set up.
Dr. Levy: There’s a great book by Carol Dweck called Mindset that talks about education of young kids and putting them into silos so early in life; the brilliant kids go into the AP courses and the rest are labeled as inadequate. It’s assumed in a fixed mindset based on their heredity and IQ, and not based on the fact that they have not been exposed to the right things.
Xavier was growing you into the man who could, in fact, do all of those things. I think that is one of the systemic and structural issues that we have—that fixed mindset that frames a kid who is not succeeding as therefore unable to succeed, as opposed to framing that child as not having the correct tools.
New tribulations of medical school
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. I think what Xavier did for me is to at least let me understand what I needed to do, how to comprehend and retain information, which I never had been exposed to before. Those years were very important to establishing a foundation. When going to medical school, it was like, “There’s no more excuses. What could be the problem now?” Well, now let’s talk about taking tests—a whole different skill. Xavier focused on getting me to understand how to structure my thought process and knowledge base. In medical school I had to apply those skills (because if you can’t apply them, there’s no fit).
My second through fourth year of medical school, I was the only African-American kid in my class. I was spending 20-hour days sometimes just studying, trying to overcompensate by knowing as much as I possibly could and thinking that would propel me from the test-taking standpoint. Even though I didn’t have a lot of classmates in medical school that looked like me, I did have mentors that looked similarly, who really saw potential in me. Dr. Frederick Horvath, a nephrologist in Peoria said, “What are you doing? I want you to get out of these books, and let’s go out to lunch.”
He ended up buying me some instrumental books, really talked to me, listening to my background and understanding how driven I was as a person. He took me under his wing for the rest of medical school and said, “This is how you navigate through these spaces. Yes, you need to have a fund of knowledge to be able to take these tests, but you need to start understanding how to apply it to these questions.” I’m forever grateful to Dr. Horvath for doing that because it was a point in time where I was lost and struggling.
Continue to: Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on...
Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on
Dr. Levy: You talk about the systemic and pervasive racism that was on the wards when you hit them in fourth year. If you don’t mind sharing just a little bit of that, it would help people reading this to have a better understanding of the kinds of barriers that are out there.
Dr. Johnson: Even when I talk about it today, it bothers me.
I went to medical school in Peoria, Illinois, not far from the home of the Ku Klux Klan. At that time, once you got out of Chicago it was a very brutal place, with systemic racism throughout. I was a young Black kid going through a process that not many young Black kids from the South side of Chicago go through, and you had people who had never seen anyone like me. When I was going through my clinical rotations, I knew what I was up against. I was dressed “to the T” every day, arriving early, leaving late, trying to answer questions. I would look at the evaluations, and they would be disparaging. I would look at my counterparts, how their evaluations were, and how people would respond to them, and it would be completely different.
Surgery was the part of ObGyn that I really grew to love more than anything, even more than obstetrics. When general surgery came, I wanted to take it very seriously and learn as much as I possibly could. From the beginning, I knew there was a problem because the chief resident, an older White man, wouldn’t look me in the eye or talk to me. He would make disparaging remarks. The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was when I was in the operating room transporting patients, just like a medical student did, and he came up behind me and said, “You know, Pierre, this is where a small mind and a strong back come into play.” For me, it took me to a place where I had to corral my emotions and thoughts because I just wanted to lash out and just tell him how racist and horrible that was for him to say that to me. I explained this to the powers that be, the director of the department, and they basically blew it off to the side.
When it came down to the end of the evaluation period, I passed with flying colors. But they gave me an incomplete because of that chief resident and his remarks on my evaluations. He had 3 pages of report about me as a person and as a student. He said that he had difficulty in expressing his opinions about me because of possible cultural biases that he may have had. He put “cultural biases” in an evaluation, and they looked at that and said that was enough for me to have to remediate my time. I was required to do an extra month in Pontiac, Illinois, which is even more rural than Peoria, because of a racist person that did not give me a fair opportunity because I was Black.
Like everything else in life, it was a learning experience. It’s why I fight so hard today. It’s why I’m so passionate about equity, not only in medicine but also in all aspects of society. It shows why we have police brutality and Black men dying in the streets. It shows how this happens because there are cultural and implicit biases that play out in every part of life, and we are not honest about it. Until we are honest about it and until we say that this is happening and there is something that needs to be done to address it, it’s going to continue to happen. That is my fight.
Exposing the unspoken power struggle
Dr. Levy: I couldn’t agree more. Attributing things like that to the individual, where you talk about a White man in power and a power structure that didn’t literally physically beat you but did beat you into submission. You talk about how to succeed in medical school, and how you had to suck it up and submit to something that was incredibly unfair. You understood, you were old enough, mature enough, to understand that if you fought back, you were going to lose. The only opportunity you had was to submit to that inequity and push forward.
Dr. Johnson: When I did try to fight, the chair of the department told me that either I accept the consequences or I would not graduate from medical school and be forced to do another year. That struck a chord with me. I think that happens a lot in our society, and it needs to be exposed.
Past experiences reflected in today’s society
Dr. Levy: Can you talk about what you faced in your ObGyn residency in terms of the systemic pushback, people not taking your orders, people questioning you. I know that I have heard that a great deal, and I experienced that myself as a woman.
Dr. Johnson: We look at the things that are happening now, everything from George Floyd’s murder to Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. These things are 10 years past when I first started residency. The year before I started residency, there was a noose hanging on the capitol lawn of Springfield, Illinois’ capital city. There’s systemic racism and hatred there. When I first started on the wards of my first year of ObGyn, again, I was the very first Black resident of my program’s history. Nobody could relate to me.
I went from a year-long general surgery internship at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, to ObGyn residency. In the first 2 months, there were complaints of, “He’s not answering his pages. He’s not being prompt.” I went to my program director and said, “Listen, I have never had one complaint like this. There’s a problem here. And there’s a problem when I’m on the floor: When trying to give orders to nurses, they’re not taking them. I had to tell a couple of nurses, ‘I’m Dr. Johnson. Don’t call me by my first name, especially not in front of patients.’”
My director was just not hearing me, because the entire scenario was something they had never been exposed to. Systemic racism is real, and unless you experience it, it’s very difficult to accept that it is happening. But biases happen when you are not cognizant. People are used to things a certain way. Things play out in the media that make your mind think a certain way, and you don’t even realize it. You may not even want to be that way.
Continue to: Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity...
Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity
Dr. Levy: One very important point you just made is that we as the system need to be able to recognize those unconscious things, the language that we use, the disparaging remarks, the things that put people down, as well as the things that keep people out of promotion.
There are some interesting data about both race and gender and the language that we use when we write recommendations for people, that we do things unconsciously. The big message to all of us at the end is to open our minds to where those things can occur. For myself, professionally, I keep a list of words that I use when I write recommendations. I measure myself to ensure that I am using the same language for men and women, for Black and White. I think we need to overcome the system and the structure to create real equity—not equality but equity.
It begins with being real about the issues
Dr. Johnson: It’s a bigger problem than the existence of bias and racism. I think these are systemic issues that have been cultivated over centuries that have never been addressed. The true issue is that we deny that these are problems and refuse to talk about it because it makes us uncomfortable. To truly make things more equitable, we have to push our levels of comfort to be able to talk about things in a healthy manner, be open and transparent, and to start to understand how we are thinking about certain things. When you can see it, you can start to implement changes and start to change mentalities and thought processes.
For me, people say, “You don’t look like a doctor.” I get that all the time—because I have tattoos and earrings. I wear my hair in a mohawk. The image of what success looks like has been manifested through our media and culture, and it has imprinted on our minds as to how things are supposed to be. If someone doesn’t fit those molds, we start to shun them out, or we start to exhibit biases against those things. What I am trying to do is change that thought process of what a successful or a professional person looks like. It doesn’t have a look. It is not a White or Black thing. It’s an intellect, a mindset, a way of living. You have to treat every person as an individual and take all the biases out of it and understand where they are coming from and what they have to offer to the profession.
Dr. Levy: I personally was so impressed by you when I met you. I was impressed by the tattoos and the earrings, and my initial response to them was exactly that biased, “Oh, who is this person?” I checked that at the door, listened to you, and was really impressed at your surgical skill, your knowledge, your background. I am really grateful that you have been willing to spend the time to share that with everyone.
Dr. Johnson: Thank you for this discussion.
To watch the full interview between Drs. Levy and Johnson, visit: https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/228507/facing-systemic-racism-health-care-inequities-medical-education. ●
- The Pulse of Perseverance:
Three Black Doctors on Their Journey to Success Pierre Johnson, MD; Maxime Madhere, MD; and Joseph Semien Jr, MD - Mindset:
The New Psychology of Success
Carol S. Dweck
Finding inspiration among life’s challenges
Barbara Levy, MD: I am fortunate to have met Pierre serendipitously at a training that we were both attending and was impressed by Dr. Johnson’s life story, his passion and commitment, and his dedication—not only to his personal career but also to raising up other young men of color by trying to break down barriers that face them. His life story highlights those areas of systemic and structural problems that all of us together need to address if we are going to make any progress.
Pierre Johnson, MD: Thank you, Barbara. A little about myself: I am a board-certified ObGyn, and I specialize in minimally invasive surgery. I was born on the South side of Chicago, experiencing gang violence, drugs, and substandard, underserved schools. Long story short, I had a very rough upbringing. I had a single mom and several different issues at home. I am the oldest of 5 siblings, and life was tough.
But I knew that I wanted to do something different with my life. I saw that there was a need in my community as far as health care was concerned, in particular women’s health and childbirth. I knew early on that I wanted to be an ObGyn, and the reason had a lot to do with The Cosby Show. It was the only example of a positive, successful Black man that I saw. No one graduated from college in my family. There weren’t any models of young Black excellence around me. Saying that I wanted to be a doctor planted a seed. I was 9 when my mom became pregnant with my first sibling, and it was fascinating to me. The physiology of pregnancy, and eventually childbirth, was extremely fascinating to me; it set me off on my journey to be an ObGyn.
As I got older, things didn’t get any easier. I went to high school in one of the toughest areas on the South side of Chicago. Gang violence, and violence in and of itself, were all around me, but I was able to stay focused. I went on to Xavier University in Louisiana.
Dr. Levy: There are some important things that I learned from your book and from talking to you at our first meeting. Your mom’s ObGyn, when she was pregnant with your next youngest sibling, was also a Black ObGyn. He took some time to take you under wing?
Dr. Johnson: He did. My mom’s ObGyn was a Black man. Other than The Cosby Show, that’s the only time I saw something like that. When I spoke to him, he really took the time to answer my questions and show me that he was like me; he wasn’t just a far-off mythical person, or something that I could not obtain.
Continue to: Seeing is believing when it comes to success...
Seeing is believing when it comes to success
Dr. Levy: Do you think it was important to have a role model who wasn’t a sports star?
Dr. Johnson: If you can’t see it, you can’t achieve it. He took his time to really talk to me, and it’s the little things for kids that go a long way in their life experience. I still have a relationship with him to this day. How he handled me as a kid made me realize that this is something that I could do. That was extremely important for me.
Dr. Levy: One of the structural things I think we need to point out is that the ability to see yourself as someone successful is critical. When we see 1,000 images a day and they are all White, and they are all so different from where we are that it gets incorporated into our sense of being. I think that’s really difficult for those of us of with privilege to understand what that privilege is.
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely, and I’ll even go further. In residency, 2 White females were my classmates, and both of their parents were doctors. They had grandparents who were doctors. My mom was addicted to drugs; my father was not around. They had been talking medicine since they were 5. You have to make things equitable, but in medicine it’s really not equitable. In medicine, what we don’t realize is that there is an importance for all aspects of someone’s upbringing and environment, and it’s not just what they can regurgitate on a standardized test. If a patient can’t relate to you and tell you what is wrong with them, how can you adequately treat them?
Dr. Levy: Even if they are trying to tell me, but I can’t hear it because I don’t have the language and I don’t have the background. There are really good data to show, in fact, that Black male physicians do a better job at engaging Black men to manage their hypertension.1 When we look at the inequities in birth outcomes for women of color, indigenous women and Black women, there’s evidence that providers who come from a similar background do a better job.
Dr. Johnson: There was the study of Black infants that just came out about them dying at a 3-time higher rate in non-Black physicians’ hands.2 These things need to be recognized. They need to be discussed, and they need to be identified as issues and then, realistically, we need to start talking about solutions, not get offended by what actual statistics are saying.
Foundational inequities in education
Dr. Levy: To address some of the barriers that you faced: I know that you went to a high school that was not geared toward pushing students into professional careers. Your colleagues, however, had educations that prepared them for the standardized tests and other things that they would face academically.
Dr. Johnson: People think I am kidding when I say it, but when I went into college, I didn’t know what a periodic table was. I saw it, but I had no idea what these things meant. I didn’t have any sciences or any AP classes in high school. I did well, but grades are smoke and mirrors. The true test of medicine comes with testing. From the MCATs to the boards, every step of the way there is a standardized test.
Knowledge is something that you can obtain, but test taking is a cultivated skill that happens from a very early age. Trying to teach an adult or someone in their late teens a skill that they should have learned as a kid is difficult. For me, I did not have that, so I had to program myself. I had to learn how to fundamentally take tests as an adult, where most people understand how to do that going into college and professional school.
Dr. Levy: I was impressed with your resilience. I think all of us as human beings, if we fail a test, we take it personally and think it’s about our lack of knowledge. One of the insights that you came to was that failure on those things was not that you didn’t study hard enough. In fact, you probably studied 4 times harder than most other people. You had the knowledge. Being able to get that knowledge into a standardized structured test score was the huge challenge for you.
Dr. Johnson: That’s it. I can remember taking the MCAT, and if you looked at the step 1 book, I could regurgitate to you everything on that page. However, it’s not a test about do you know it or not. It’s an understanding of the English language and how to break things down to make things fit into particular scenarios.
Continue to: A college experience focused on growth and exposure...
A college experience focused on growth and exposure
Dr. Levy: I was impressed by the distinction between your experience at Xavier University where there was a lot of support and guidance and help in your premed program, and what happened to you when you hit medical school.
Dr. Johnson: Xavier University in Louisiana is the number 1 institution in the country for getting minorities into professional school. They understand that they have kids that are brilliant but underprepared, and just have not had the background to actually tackle some of these tough curriculums. I always had good grades in school. But by not being challenged, I didn’t know what I didn’t really know. So now that I was seeing biology, chemistry for the first time, and trying to tackle it; there’s a failure point. I didn’t know how to take tests, and I didn’t know how to study properly. The harder I tried, the worse things got for me.
Xavier has seen that story a multitude of times. If I went to a bigger or predominantly White university, a counselor would have told me, “Well, medicine’s maybe not for you. You can’t handle a premed curriculum.” Instead, I said, “Listen, I’m studying. I’m doing all of these things, and I’m not hacking it.” And they broke it down: “Let’s get you into study groups with kids that have had these type of AP classes before. We’ll have you watch how they study,” and everything started to click. That facilitation of how to adjust to this curriculum was a godsend. It’s the only reason I’m here. I am a prime example of being brilliant enough to be able to do it, but needing the infrastructure and a system set up.
Dr. Levy: There’s a great book by Carol Dweck called Mindset that talks about education of young kids and putting them into silos so early in life; the brilliant kids go into the AP courses and the rest are labeled as inadequate. It’s assumed in a fixed mindset based on their heredity and IQ, and not based on the fact that they have not been exposed to the right things.
Xavier was growing you into the man who could, in fact, do all of those things. I think that is one of the systemic and structural issues that we have—that fixed mindset that frames a kid who is not succeeding as therefore unable to succeed, as opposed to framing that child as not having the correct tools.
New tribulations of medical school
Dr. Johnson: Absolutely. I think what Xavier did for me is to at least let me understand what I needed to do, how to comprehend and retain information, which I never had been exposed to before. Those years were very important to establishing a foundation. When going to medical school, it was like, “There’s no more excuses. What could be the problem now?” Well, now let’s talk about taking tests—a whole different skill. Xavier focused on getting me to understand how to structure my thought process and knowledge base. In medical school I had to apply those skills (because if you can’t apply them, there’s no fit).
My second through fourth year of medical school, I was the only African-American kid in my class. I was spending 20-hour days sometimes just studying, trying to overcompensate by knowing as much as I possibly could and thinking that would propel me from the test-taking standpoint. Even though I didn’t have a lot of classmates in medical school that looked like me, I did have mentors that looked similarly, who really saw potential in me. Dr. Frederick Horvath, a nephrologist in Peoria said, “What are you doing? I want you to get out of these books, and let’s go out to lunch.”
He ended up buying me some instrumental books, really talked to me, listening to my background and understanding how driven I was as a person. He took me under his wing for the rest of medical school and said, “This is how you navigate through these spaces. Yes, you need to have a fund of knowledge to be able to take these tests, but you need to start understanding how to apply it to these questions.” I’m forever grateful to Dr. Horvath for doing that because it was a point in time where I was lost and struggling.
Continue to: Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on...
Hitting a stride but facing racism head-on
Dr. Levy: You talk about the systemic and pervasive racism that was on the wards when you hit them in fourth year. If you don’t mind sharing just a little bit of that, it would help people reading this to have a better understanding of the kinds of barriers that are out there.
Dr. Johnson: Even when I talk about it today, it bothers me.
I went to medical school in Peoria, Illinois, not far from the home of the Ku Klux Klan. At that time, once you got out of Chicago it was a very brutal place, with systemic racism throughout. I was a young Black kid going through a process that not many young Black kids from the South side of Chicago go through, and you had people who had never seen anyone like me. When I was going through my clinical rotations, I knew what I was up against. I was dressed “to the T” every day, arriving early, leaving late, trying to answer questions. I would look at the evaluations, and they would be disparaging. I would look at my counterparts, how their evaluations were, and how people would respond to them, and it would be completely different.
Surgery was the part of ObGyn that I really grew to love more than anything, even more than obstetrics. When general surgery came, I wanted to take it very seriously and learn as much as I possibly could. From the beginning, I knew there was a problem because the chief resident, an older White man, wouldn’t look me in the eye or talk to me. He would make disparaging remarks. The thing that stuck out in my mind the most was when I was in the operating room transporting patients, just like a medical student did, and he came up behind me and said, “You know, Pierre, this is where a small mind and a strong back come into play.” For me, it took me to a place where I had to corral my emotions and thoughts because I just wanted to lash out and just tell him how racist and horrible that was for him to say that to me. I explained this to the powers that be, the director of the department, and they basically blew it off to the side.
When it came down to the end of the evaluation period, I passed with flying colors. But they gave me an incomplete because of that chief resident and his remarks on my evaluations. He had 3 pages of report about me as a person and as a student. He said that he had difficulty in expressing his opinions about me because of possible cultural biases that he may have had. He put “cultural biases” in an evaluation, and they looked at that and said that was enough for me to have to remediate my time. I was required to do an extra month in Pontiac, Illinois, which is even more rural than Peoria, because of a racist person that did not give me a fair opportunity because I was Black.
Like everything else in life, it was a learning experience. It’s why I fight so hard today. It’s why I’m so passionate about equity, not only in medicine but also in all aspects of society. It shows why we have police brutality and Black men dying in the streets. It shows how this happens because there are cultural and implicit biases that play out in every part of life, and we are not honest about it. Until we are honest about it and until we say that this is happening and there is something that needs to be done to address it, it’s going to continue to happen. That is my fight.
Exposing the unspoken power struggle
Dr. Levy: I couldn’t agree more. Attributing things like that to the individual, where you talk about a White man in power and a power structure that didn’t literally physically beat you but did beat you into submission. You talk about how to succeed in medical school, and how you had to suck it up and submit to something that was incredibly unfair. You understood, you were old enough, mature enough, to understand that if you fought back, you were going to lose. The only opportunity you had was to submit to that inequity and push forward.
Dr. Johnson: When I did try to fight, the chair of the department told me that either I accept the consequences or I would not graduate from medical school and be forced to do another year. That struck a chord with me. I think that happens a lot in our society, and it needs to be exposed.
Past experiences reflected in today’s society
Dr. Levy: Can you talk about what you faced in your ObGyn residency in terms of the systemic pushback, people not taking your orders, people questioning you. I know that I have heard that a great deal, and I experienced that myself as a woman.
Dr. Johnson: We look at the things that are happening now, everything from George Floyd’s murder to Colin Kaepernick taking a knee. These things are 10 years past when I first started residency. The year before I started residency, there was a noose hanging on the capitol lawn of Springfield, Illinois’ capital city. There’s systemic racism and hatred there. When I first started on the wards of my first year of ObGyn, again, I was the very first Black resident of my program’s history. Nobody could relate to me.
I went from a year-long general surgery internship at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC, to ObGyn residency. In the first 2 months, there were complaints of, “He’s not answering his pages. He’s not being prompt.” I went to my program director and said, “Listen, I have never had one complaint like this. There’s a problem here. And there’s a problem when I’m on the floor: When trying to give orders to nurses, they’re not taking them. I had to tell a couple of nurses, ‘I’m Dr. Johnson. Don’t call me by my first name, especially not in front of patients.’”
My director was just not hearing me, because the entire scenario was something they had never been exposed to. Systemic racism is real, and unless you experience it, it’s very difficult to accept that it is happening. But biases happen when you are not cognizant. People are used to things a certain way. Things play out in the media that make your mind think a certain way, and you don’t even realize it. You may not even want to be that way.
Continue to: Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity...
Unconscious bias is a barrier to ensuring equity
Dr. Levy: One very important point you just made is that we as the system need to be able to recognize those unconscious things, the language that we use, the disparaging remarks, the things that put people down, as well as the things that keep people out of promotion.
There are some interesting data about both race and gender and the language that we use when we write recommendations for people, that we do things unconsciously. The big message to all of us at the end is to open our minds to where those things can occur. For myself, professionally, I keep a list of words that I use when I write recommendations. I measure myself to ensure that I am using the same language for men and women, for Black and White. I think we need to overcome the system and the structure to create real equity—not equality but equity.
It begins with being real about the issues
Dr. Johnson: It’s a bigger problem than the existence of bias and racism. I think these are systemic issues that have been cultivated over centuries that have never been addressed. The true issue is that we deny that these are problems and refuse to talk about it because it makes us uncomfortable. To truly make things more equitable, we have to push our levels of comfort to be able to talk about things in a healthy manner, be open and transparent, and to start to understand how we are thinking about certain things. When you can see it, you can start to implement changes and start to change mentalities and thought processes.
For me, people say, “You don’t look like a doctor.” I get that all the time—because I have tattoos and earrings. I wear my hair in a mohawk. The image of what success looks like has been manifested through our media and culture, and it has imprinted on our minds as to how things are supposed to be. If someone doesn’t fit those molds, we start to shun them out, or we start to exhibit biases against those things. What I am trying to do is change that thought process of what a successful or a professional person looks like. It doesn’t have a look. It is not a White or Black thing. It’s an intellect, a mindset, a way of living. You have to treat every person as an individual and take all the biases out of it and understand where they are coming from and what they have to offer to the profession.
Dr. Levy: I personally was so impressed by you when I met you. I was impressed by the tattoos and the earrings, and my initial response to them was exactly that biased, “Oh, who is this person?” I checked that at the door, listened to you, and was really impressed at your surgical skill, your knowledge, your background. I am really grateful that you have been willing to spend the time to share that with everyone.
Dr. Johnson: Thank you for this discussion.
To watch the full interview between Drs. Levy and Johnson, visit: https://www.mdedge.com/obgyn/article/228507/facing-systemic-racism-health-care-inequities-medical-education. ●
- The Pulse of Perseverance:
Three Black Doctors on Their Journey to Success Pierre Johnson, MD; Maxime Madhere, MD; and Joseph Semien Jr, MD - Mindset:
The New Psychology of Success
Carol S. Dweck
- Benkert R, Peters R, Tate N, et al. Trust of nurse practitioners and physicians among African Americans with hypertension. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20:273-280.
- Greenwood BN, Hardeman RR, Huang L, et al. Physician– patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117:21194-21200.
- Benkert R, Peters R, Tate N, et al. Trust of nurse practitioners and physicians among African Americans with hypertension. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008;20:273-280.
- Greenwood BN, Hardeman RR, Huang L, et al. Physician– patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117:21194-21200.
Medicare finalizes 2021 physician pay rule with E/M changes
Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.
The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.
CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.
The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.
“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”
In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.
Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).
In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).
CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.
The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.
In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”
By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.
The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.
In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.
The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.
Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.
“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
“Long overdue”
But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.
In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”
This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.
In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”
The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”
In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.
“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.
The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.
CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.
The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.
“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”
In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.
Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).
In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).
CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.
The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.
In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”
By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.
The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.
In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.
The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.
Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.
“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
“Long overdue”
But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.
In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”
This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.
In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”
The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”
In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.
“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Medicare officials stuck with their plan to increase payments for office visits for primary care and several other specialties that focus on helping patients manage complex conditions such as diabetes. In doing so, Medicare also finalized cuts for other fields, triggering a new wave of protests.
The final version of the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule was unveiled on the night of Dec. 1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted an unofficial copy of the rule, which will later be published in the Federal Register.
CMS said it completed work on this massive annual review of payments for clinicians later than it usually does because of the demands of the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2021 physician fee rule will take effect within a 30-day period instead of the usual 60-day time frame.
The most contentious item proposed for 2021 was a reshuffling of payments among specialties as part of an overhaul of Medicare’s approach to valuing evaluation and management (E/M) services. There was broader support for other aspects of the E/M overhaul, which are intended to cut some of the administrative hassle clinicians face.
“This finalized policy marks the most significant updates to E/M codes in 30 years, reducing burden on doctors imposed by the coding system and rewarding time spent evaluating and managing their patients’ care,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “In the past, the system has rewarded interventions and procedures over time spent with patients – time taken preventing disease and managing chronic illnesses.”
In the final rule, CMS summarized these results of the E/M changes in Table 106. CMS largely stuck with the approach outlined in a draft rule released in August, with minor changes in the amounts of cuts and increases.
Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 final physician fee schedule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (16%), family practice (13%), general practice (7%), geriatrics (3%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (7%), rheumatology (15%), and urology (8%).
In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–8%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–6%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–6%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–10%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).
CMS had initially set these changes in 2021 pay in motion in the 2020 physician fee schedule. The agency subsequently faced significant opposition to its plans. Many physician groups sought to waive a “budget-neutral” approach to the E/M overhaul, which makes the offsetting of cuts necessary. They argued this would allow increased compensation for clinicians whose practices focus on office visits without requiring offsetting cuts from other fields of medicine.
The American Medical Association is among those urging Congress to prevent or postpone the payment reductions resulting from Medicare’s budget neutrality requirement as applied to the E/M overhaul.
In a Tuesday statement, AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, noted that many physicians are facing “substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19.”
By AMA’s calculations, CMS’ planned 2021 E/M overhaul could result in “a shocking reduction of 10.2% to Medicare payment rates,” according to Bailey’s statement. The AMA strongly supports other aspects of the E/M changes CMS finalized, which Bailey said will result in “simpler and more flexible” coding and documentation.
The Surgical Care Coalition, which represents about a dozen medical specialty associations, is asking members of Congress to block the full implementation of the E/M overhaul.
In a Dec. 1 statement, the coalition urged the passage of a bill (HR 8702) that has been introduced in the House by a bipartisan duo of physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.), and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-Ind.). Their bill would effectively block the cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2021. It would provide an additional Medicare payment for certain services in 2021 and 2022 if the otherwise applicable payment is less than it would have been in 2020.
The Medicare E/M overhaul “was a dangerous policy even before the pandemic, and enacting it during the worst health care crisis in a century is unconscionable. If Congress fails to act, it will further strain a health care system that’s already been pushed to the brink due to the COVID-19 pandemic and undermine patient care,” said John A. Wilson, MD, president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in a statement.
Also backing the Bera-Bucshon bill is the American College of Emergency Physicians. In a statement on Tuesday, ACEP President Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, urged Congress to act on this measure.
“Emergency physicians and other health care providers battling on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic are already under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19,” Dr. Rosenberg said. “These cuts would have a devastating impact for the future of emergency medicine and could seriously impede patients’ access to emergency care when they need it most.”
“Long overdue”
But there also are champions for the approach CMS took in the E/M overhaul. The influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has argued strongly for keeping the budget-neutral approach to the E/M overhaul.
In an Oct. 2 comment to CMS about the draft 2021 physician fee schedule, MedPAC Chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, said this approach would “help rebalance the fee schedule from services that have become overvalued to services that have become undervalued.”
This budget-neutral approach also “will go further in reducing the large gap in compensation between primary care physicians (who had a median income of $243,000 in 2018) and specialists such as surgeons (whose median income was $426,000 in 2018),” Dr. Chernew wrote.
In a Tuesday tweet, Robert B. Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy for the American College of Physicians, said CMS had “finalized long overdue payment increases for primary and comprehensive care including an add-in for more complex visits.”
The American Academy of Family Physicians joined ACP in a November 30 letter to congressional leaders, urging them to allow Medicare “to increase investment in primary care, benefiting millions of Medicare patients and the program itself, and reject last minute efforts to prevent these essential and long-overdue changes from going fully into effect on January 1, 2021.”
In the letter, AAFP and ACP and their cosigners argued for a need to address “underinvestment” in primary care by finalizing the E/M overhaul.
“Given that six in ten American adults have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more chronic conditions, why would we, as a country, accept such an inadequate investment in the very care model that stands to provide maximum value to these patients?” they wrote. “Since we know that individuals with a longitudinal relationship with a primary care physician have better health outcomes and use fewer health care resources, why would we continue to direct money to higher-cost, marginal value services?”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Reducing Inappropriate Laboratory Testing in the Hospital Setting: How Low Can We Go?
From the University of Toronto (Dr. Basuita, Corey L. Kamen, and Dr. Soong) and Sinai Health System (Corey L. Kamen, Cheryl Ethier, and Dr. Soong), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Co-first authors are Manpreet Basuita, MD, and Corey L. Kamen, BSc.
Abstract
- Objective: Routine laboratory testing is common among medical inpatients; however, when ordered inappropriately testing can represent low-value care. We examined the impact of an evidence-based intervention bundle on utilization.
- Participants/setting: This prospective cohort study took place at a tertiary academic medical center and included 6424 patients admitted to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018.
- Intervention: An intervention bundle, whose first components were implemented in July 2016, included computer order entry restrictions on repetitive laboratory testing, education, and audit-feedback.
- Measures: Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record. The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (complete blood count, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day.
- Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome.
- Results: The mean number of combined routine laboratory tests ordered per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) tests to 1.11 (SD, 0.05), a relative reduction of 6.7% (P < 0.0001). Mean cost per case related to laboratory tests decreased from $17.24 in the pre-intervention period to $16.17 in the post-intervention period (relative reduction of 6.2%). This resulted in savings of $26,851 in the intervention year.
- Conclusion: A laboratory intervention bundle was associated with small reductions in testing and costs. A routine test performed less than once per inpatient day may not be clinically appropriate or possible.
Keywords: utilization; clinical costs; quality improvement; QI intervention; internal medicine; inpatient.
Routine laboratory blood testing is a commonly used diagnostic tool that physicians rely on to provide patient care. Although routine blood testing represents less than 5% of most hospital budgets, routine use and over-reliance on testing among physicians makes it a target of cost-reduction efforts.1-3 A variety of interventions have been proposed to reduce inappropriate laboratory tests, with varying results.1,4-6 Successful interventions include providing physicians with fee data associated with ordered laboratory tests, unbundling panels of tests, and multicomponent interventions.6 We conducted a multifaceted quality improvement study to promote and develop interventions to adopt appropriate blood test ordering practices.
Methods
Setting
This prospective cohort study took place at Mount Sinai Hospital, a 443-bed academic hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where more than 2400 learners rotate through annually. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board.
Participants
We included all inpatient admissions to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018. Exclusion criteria included a length of stay (LOS) longer than 365 days and admission to a critical care unit. Patients with more than 1 admission were counted as separate hospital inpatient visits.
Intervention
Based on internal data, we targeted the top 3 most frequently ordered routine blood tests: complete blood count (CBC), creatinine, and electrolytes. Trainee interviews revealed that habit, bundled order sets, and fear of “missing something” contributed to inappropriate routine blood test ordering. Based on these root causes, we used the Model for Improvement to iteratively develop a multimodal intervention that began in July 2016.7,8 This included a change to the computerized provider order entry (CPOE) to nudge clinicians to a restrictive ordering strategy by substituting the “Daily x3” frequency of blood test ordering with a “Daily x1” option on a pick list of order options. Clinicians could still order daily routine blood tests for any specified duration, but would have to do so by manually changing the default setting within the CPOE.
From July 2017 to March 2018, the research team educated residents on appropriate laboratory test ordering and provided audit and feedback data to the clinicians. Diagnostic uncertainty was addressed in teaching sessions. Attending physicians were surveyed on appropriate indications for daily laboratory testing for each of CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine. Appropriate indications (Figure 1) were displayed in visible clinical areas and incorporated into teaching sessions.9
Clinician teams received real-time performance data on their routine blood test ordering patterns compared with an institutional benchmark. Bar graphs of blood work ordering rates (sum of CBCs, creatinine, and electrolytes ordered for all patients on a given team divided by the total LOS for all patients) were distributed to each internal medicine team via email every 2 weeks (Figure 2).1,10-12
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control (SPC) charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome. SPC charts display process changes over time. Data are plotted in chronological order, with the central line representing the outcome mean, an upper line representing the upper control limit, and a lower line representing the lower control limit. The upper and lower limits were set at 3δ, which correspond to 3 standard deviations above and below the mean. Six successive points above or beyond the mean suggests “special cause variation,” indicating that observed results are unlikely due to secular trends. SPC charts are commonly used quality tools for process improvement as well as research.13-16 These charts were created using QI Macros SPC software for Excel V. 2012.07 (KnowWare International, Denver, CO).
The direct cost of each laboratory test was acquired from the hospital laboratory department. The cost of each laboratory test (CBC = $7.54/test, electrolytes = $2.04/test, creatinine = $1.28/test, in Canadian dollars) was subsequently added together and multiplied by the pre- and post-intervention difference of total blood tests saved per inpatient day and then multiplied by 365 to arrive at an estimated cost savings per year.
Results
Over the study period, there were 6424 unique patient admissions on the general internal medicine service, with a median LOS of 3.5 days (Table). 
The majority of inpatient visits had at least 1 test of CBC (80%; mean, 3.6 tests/visit), creatinine (79.3%; mean, 3.5 tests/visit), or electrolytes (81.6%; mean, 3.9 tests/visit) completed. In total, 56,767 laboratory tests were ordered.
Following the intervention, there was a reduction in both rates of routine blood test orders and their associated costs, with a shift below the mean. The mean number of tests ordered (combined CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) in the pre-intervention period to 1.11 (SD, 0.05) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.0001), representing a 6.7% relative reduction (Figure 3). We observed a 6.2% relative reduction in costs per inpatient day, translating to a total savings of $26,851 over 1 year for the intervention period.
Discussion
Our study suggests that a multimodal intervention, including CPOE restrictions, resident education with posters, and audit and feedback strategies, can reduce lab test ordering on general internal medicine wards. This finding is similar to those of previous studies using a similar intervention, although different laboratory tests were targeted.1,2,5,6,10,17
Our study found lower test result reductions than those reported by a previous study, which reported a relative reduction of 17% to 30%,18 and by another investigation that was conducted recently in a similar setting.17 In the latter study, reductions in laboratory testing were mostly found in nonroutine tests, and no significant improvements were noted in CBC, electrolytes, and creatine, the 3 tests we studied over the same duration.17 This may represent a ceiling effect to reducing laboratory testing, and efforts to reduce CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine testing beyond 0.3 to 0.4 tests per inpatient day (or combined 1.16 tests per inpatient day) may not be clinically appropriate or possible. This information can guide institutions to include other areas of overuse based on rates of utilization in order to maximize the benefits from a resource intensive intervention.
There are a number of limitations that merit discussion. First, observational studies do not demonstrate causation; however, to our knowledge, there were no other co-interventions that were being conducted during the study duration. One important note is that our project’s intervention began in July, at which point there are new internal medicine residents beginning their training. As the concept of resource allocation becomes more important, medical schools are spending more time educating students about Choosing Wisely, and, therefore, newer cohorts of residents may be more cognizant of appropriate blood testing. Second, this is a single-center study, limiting generalizability; however, we note that many other centers have reported similar findings. Another limitation is that we do not know whether there were any adverse clinical events associated with blood work ordering that was too restrictive, although informal tracking of STAT laboratory testing remained stable throughout the study period. It is important to ensure that blood work is ordered in moderation and tailored to patients using one’s clinical judgment.
Future Directions
We observed modest reductions in the quantity and costs associated with a quality improvement intervention aimed at reducing routine blood testing. A baseline rate of laboratory testing of less than 1 test per inpatient day may require including other target tests to drive down absolute utilization.
Corresponding author: Christine Soong, MD, MSc, 433-600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X5; Christine.soong@utoronto.ca.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;178:431.
2. May TA, Clancy M, Critchfield J, et al. Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:200-206.
3. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Ebidia A, et al. Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:520-524.
4. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:903-908.
5. Attali, M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost-effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university-associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787-794.
6. Faisal A, Andres K, Rind JAK, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary routine laboratory tests through education of internal medicine residents. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94:716-719.
7. How to Improve. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2009. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/default.aspx. Accessed June 5, 2019.
8. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
9. Hicks L. Blood Draws Toolkit. Choosing Wisely Canada. 2017. https://choosingwiselycanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/CWC_BloodDraws_Toolkit.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2019.
10. Sadowski BW, Lane AB, Wood SM, et al. High-value, cost-conscious care: iterative systems-based interventions to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing. Am J Med. 2017;130:1112e1-1112e7.
11. Minerowicz C, Abel N, Hunter K, et al. Impact of weekly feedback on test ordering patterns. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21:763-768.
12. Calderon-Margalit R, Mor-Yosef S, et al. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243-248.
13. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-64.
14. American Society for Quality. Control chart. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/control-chart. Accessed November 5, 2020.
15. American Society for Quality. The 7 Basic Quality Tools For Process Improvement. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools. Accessed November 5, 2020.
16. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-464.
17. Ambasta A, Ma IWY, Woo S, et al. Impact of an education and multilevel social comparison-based intervention bundle on use of routine blood tests in hospitalised patients at an academic tertiary care hospital: a controlled pre-intervention post-intervention study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1-2.
18. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316:1061-1072.
From the University of Toronto (Dr. Basuita, Corey L. Kamen, and Dr. Soong) and Sinai Health System (Corey L. Kamen, Cheryl Ethier, and Dr. Soong), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Co-first authors are Manpreet Basuita, MD, and Corey L. Kamen, BSc.
Abstract
- Objective: Routine laboratory testing is common among medical inpatients; however, when ordered inappropriately testing can represent low-value care. We examined the impact of an evidence-based intervention bundle on utilization.
- Participants/setting: This prospective cohort study took place at a tertiary academic medical center and included 6424 patients admitted to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018.
- Intervention: An intervention bundle, whose first components were implemented in July 2016, included computer order entry restrictions on repetitive laboratory testing, education, and audit-feedback.
- Measures: Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record. The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (complete blood count, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day.
- Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome.
- Results: The mean number of combined routine laboratory tests ordered per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) tests to 1.11 (SD, 0.05), a relative reduction of 6.7% (P < 0.0001). Mean cost per case related to laboratory tests decreased from $17.24 in the pre-intervention period to $16.17 in the post-intervention period (relative reduction of 6.2%). This resulted in savings of $26,851 in the intervention year.
- Conclusion: A laboratory intervention bundle was associated with small reductions in testing and costs. A routine test performed less than once per inpatient day may not be clinically appropriate or possible.
Keywords: utilization; clinical costs; quality improvement; QI intervention; internal medicine; inpatient.
Routine laboratory blood testing is a commonly used diagnostic tool that physicians rely on to provide patient care. Although routine blood testing represents less than 5% of most hospital budgets, routine use and over-reliance on testing among physicians makes it a target of cost-reduction efforts.1-3 A variety of interventions have been proposed to reduce inappropriate laboratory tests, with varying results.1,4-6 Successful interventions include providing physicians with fee data associated with ordered laboratory tests, unbundling panels of tests, and multicomponent interventions.6 We conducted a multifaceted quality improvement study to promote and develop interventions to adopt appropriate blood test ordering practices.
Methods
Setting
This prospective cohort study took place at Mount Sinai Hospital, a 443-bed academic hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where more than 2400 learners rotate through annually. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board.
Participants
We included all inpatient admissions to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018. Exclusion criteria included a length of stay (LOS) longer than 365 days and admission to a critical care unit. Patients with more than 1 admission were counted as separate hospital inpatient visits.
Intervention
Based on internal data, we targeted the top 3 most frequently ordered routine blood tests: complete blood count (CBC), creatinine, and electrolytes. Trainee interviews revealed that habit, bundled order sets, and fear of “missing something” contributed to inappropriate routine blood test ordering. Based on these root causes, we used the Model for Improvement to iteratively develop a multimodal intervention that began in July 2016.7,8 This included a change to the computerized provider order entry (CPOE) to nudge clinicians to a restrictive ordering strategy by substituting the “Daily x3” frequency of blood test ordering with a “Daily x1” option on a pick list of order options. Clinicians could still order daily routine blood tests for any specified duration, but would have to do so by manually changing the default setting within the CPOE.
From July 2017 to March 2018, the research team educated residents on appropriate laboratory test ordering and provided audit and feedback data to the clinicians. Diagnostic uncertainty was addressed in teaching sessions. Attending physicians were surveyed on appropriate indications for daily laboratory testing for each of CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine. Appropriate indications (Figure 1) were displayed in visible clinical areas and incorporated into teaching sessions.9
Clinician teams received real-time performance data on their routine blood test ordering patterns compared with an institutional benchmark. Bar graphs of blood work ordering rates (sum of CBCs, creatinine, and electrolytes ordered for all patients on a given team divided by the total LOS for all patients) were distributed to each internal medicine team via email every 2 weeks (Figure 2).1,10-12
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control (SPC) charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome. SPC charts display process changes over time. Data are plotted in chronological order, with the central line representing the outcome mean, an upper line representing the upper control limit, and a lower line representing the lower control limit. The upper and lower limits were set at 3δ, which correspond to 3 standard deviations above and below the mean. Six successive points above or beyond the mean suggests “special cause variation,” indicating that observed results are unlikely due to secular trends. SPC charts are commonly used quality tools for process improvement as well as research.13-16 These charts were created using QI Macros SPC software for Excel V. 2012.07 (KnowWare International, Denver, CO).
The direct cost of each laboratory test was acquired from the hospital laboratory department. The cost of each laboratory test (CBC = $7.54/test, electrolytes = $2.04/test, creatinine = $1.28/test, in Canadian dollars) was subsequently added together and multiplied by the pre- and post-intervention difference of total blood tests saved per inpatient day and then multiplied by 365 to arrive at an estimated cost savings per year.
Results
Over the study period, there were 6424 unique patient admissions on the general internal medicine service, with a median LOS of 3.5 days (Table).
The majority of inpatient visits had at least 1 test of CBC (80%; mean, 3.6 tests/visit), creatinine (79.3%; mean, 3.5 tests/visit), or electrolytes (81.6%; mean, 3.9 tests/visit) completed. In total, 56,767 laboratory tests were ordered.
Following the intervention, there was a reduction in both rates of routine blood test orders and their associated costs, with a shift below the mean. The mean number of tests ordered (combined CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) in the pre-intervention period to 1.11 (SD, 0.05) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.0001), representing a 6.7% relative reduction (Figure 3). We observed a 6.2% relative reduction in costs per inpatient day, translating to a total savings of $26,851 over 1 year for the intervention period.
Discussion
Our study suggests that a multimodal intervention, including CPOE restrictions, resident education with posters, and audit and feedback strategies, can reduce lab test ordering on general internal medicine wards. This finding is similar to those of previous studies using a similar intervention, although different laboratory tests were targeted.1,2,5,6,10,17
Our study found lower test result reductions than those reported by a previous study, which reported a relative reduction of 17% to 30%,18 and by another investigation that was conducted recently in a similar setting.17 In the latter study, reductions in laboratory testing were mostly found in nonroutine tests, and no significant improvements were noted in CBC, electrolytes, and creatine, the 3 tests we studied over the same duration.17 This may represent a ceiling effect to reducing laboratory testing, and efforts to reduce CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine testing beyond 0.3 to 0.4 tests per inpatient day (or combined 1.16 tests per inpatient day) may not be clinically appropriate or possible. This information can guide institutions to include other areas of overuse based on rates of utilization in order to maximize the benefits from a resource intensive intervention.
There are a number of limitations that merit discussion. First, observational studies do not demonstrate causation; however, to our knowledge, there were no other co-interventions that were being conducted during the study duration. One important note is that our project’s intervention began in July, at which point there are new internal medicine residents beginning their training. As the concept of resource allocation becomes more important, medical schools are spending more time educating students about Choosing Wisely, and, therefore, newer cohorts of residents may be more cognizant of appropriate blood testing. Second, this is a single-center study, limiting generalizability; however, we note that many other centers have reported similar findings. Another limitation is that we do not know whether there were any adverse clinical events associated with blood work ordering that was too restrictive, although informal tracking of STAT laboratory testing remained stable throughout the study period. It is important to ensure that blood work is ordered in moderation and tailored to patients using one’s clinical judgment.
Future Directions
We observed modest reductions in the quantity and costs associated with a quality improvement intervention aimed at reducing routine blood testing. A baseline rate of laboratory testing of less than 1 test per inpatient day may require including other target tests to drive down absolute utilization.
Corresponding author: Christine Soong, MD, MSc, 433-600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X5; Christine.soong@utoronto.ca.
Financial disclosures: None.
From the University of Toronto (Dr. Basuita, Corey L. Kamen, and Dr. Soong) and Sinai Health System (Corey L. Kamen, Cheryl Ethier, and Dr. Soong), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Co-first authors are Manpreet Basuita, MD, and Corey L. Kamen, BSc.
Abstract
- Objective: Routine laboratory testing is common among medical inpatients; however, when ordered inappropriately testing can represent low-value care. We examined the impact of an evidence-based intervention bundle on utilization.
- Participants/setting: This prospective cohort study took place at a tertiary academic medical center and included 6424 patients admitted to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018.
- Intervention: An intervention bundle, whose first components were implemented in July 2016, included computer order entry restrictions on repetitive laboratory testing, education, and audit-feedback.
- Measures: Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record. The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (complete blood count, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day.
- Analysis: Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome.
- Results: The mean number of combined routine laboratory tests ordered per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) tests to 1.11 (SD, 0.05), a relative reduction of 6.7% (P < 0.0001). Mean cost per case related to laboratory tests decreased from $17.24 in the pre-intervention period to $16.17 in the post-intervention period (relative reduction of 6.2%). This resulted in savings of $26,851 in the intervention year.
- Conclusion: A laboratory intervention bundle was associated with small reductions in testing and costs. A routine test performed less than once per inpatient day may not be clinically appropriate or possible.
Keywords: utilization; clinical costs; quality improvement; QI intervention; internal medicine; inpatient.
Routine laboratory blood testing is a commonly used diagnostic tool that physicians rely on to provide patient care. Although routine blood testing represents less than 5% of most hospital budgets, routine use and over-reliance on testing among physicians makes it a target of cost-reduction efforts.1-3 A variety of interventions have been proposed to reduce inappropriate laboratory tests, with varying results.1,4-6 Successful interventions include providing physicians with fee data associated with ordered laboratory tests, unbundling panels of tests, and multicomponent interventions.6 We conducted a multifaceted quality improvement study to promote and develop interventions to adopt appropriate blood test ordering practices.
Methods
Setting
This prospective cohort study took place at Mount Sinai Hospital, a 443-bed academic hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where more than 2400 learners rotate through annually. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board.
Participants
We included all inpatient admissions to the general internal medicine service between April 2016 and March 2018. Exclusion criteria included a length of stay (LOS) longer than 365 days and admission to a critical care unit. Patients with more than 1 admission were counted as separate hospital inpatient visits.
Intervention
Based on internal data, we targeted the top 3 most frequently ordered routine blood tests: complete blood count (CBC), creatinine, and electrolytes. Trainee interviews revealed that habit, bundled order sets, and fear of “missing something” contributed to inappropriate routine blood test ordering. Based on these root causes, we used the Model for Improvement to iteratively develop a multimodal intervention that began in July 2016.7,8 This included a change to the computerized provider order entry (CPOE) to nudge clinicians to a restrictive ordering strategy by substituting the “Daily x3” frequency of blood test ordering with a “Daily x1” option on a pick list of order options. Clinicians could still order daily routine blood tests for any specified duration, but would have to do so by manually changing the default setting within the CPOE.
From July 2017 to March 2018, the research team educated residents on appropriate laboratory test ordering and provided audit and feedback data to the clinicians. Diagnostic uncertainty was addressed in teaching sessions. Attending physicians were surveyed on appropriate indications for daily laboratory testing for each of CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine. Appropriate indications (Figure 1) were displayed in visible clinical areas and incorporated into teaching sessions.9
Clinician teams received real-time performance data on their routine blood test ordering patterns compared with an institutional benchmark. Bar graphs of blood work ordering rates (sum of CBCs, creatinine, and electrolytes ordered for all patients on a given team divided by the total LOS for all patients) were distributed to each internal medicine team via email every 2 weeks (Figure 2).1,10-12
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were extracted from the hospital electronic health record (EHR). The primary outcome was the number of routine blood tests (CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) ordered per inpatient day. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables. We used statistical process control (SPC) charts to compare the baseline period (April 2016-June 2017) and the intervention period (July 2017-March 2018) for the primary outcome. SPC charts display process changes over time. Data are plotted in chronological order, with the central line representing the outcome mean, an upper line representing the upper control limit, and a lower line representing the lower control limit. The upper and lower limits were set at 3δ, which correspond to 3 standard deviations above and below the mean. Six successive points above or beyond the mean suggests “special cause variation,” indicating that observed results are unlikely due to secular trends. SPC charts are commonly used quality tools for process improvement as well as research.13-16 These charts were created using QI Macros SPC software for Excel V. 2012.07 (KnowWare International, Denver, CO).
The direct cost of each laboratory test was acquired from the hospital laboratory department. The cost of each laboratory test (CBC = $7.54/test, electrolytes = $2.04/test, creatinine = $1.28/test, in Canadian dollars) was subsequently added together and multiplied by the pre- and post-intervention difference of total blood tests saved per inpatient day and then multiplied by 365 to arrive at an estimated cost savings per year.
Results
Over the study period, there were 6424 unique patient admissions on the general internal medicine service, with a median LOS of 3.5 days (Table).
The majority of inpatient visits had at least 1 test of CBC (80%; mean, 3.6 tests/visit), creatinine (79.3%; mean, 3.5 tests/visit), or electrolytes (81.6%; mean, 3.9 tests/visit) completed. In total, 56,767 laboratory tests were ordered.
Following the intervention, there was a reduction in both rates of routine blood test orders and their associated costs, with a shift below the mean. The mean number of tests ordered (combined CBC, creatinine, and electrolytes) per inpatient day decreased from 1.19 (SD, 0.21) in the pre-intervention period to 1.11 (SD, 0.05) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.0001), representing a 6.7% relative reduction (Figure 3). We observed a 6.2% relative reduction in costs per inpatient day, translating to a total savings of $26,851 over 1 year for the intervention period.
Discussion
Our study suggests that a multimodal intervention, including CPOE restrictions, resident education with posters, and audit and feedback strategies, can reduce lab test ordering on general internal medicine wards. This finding is similar to those of previous studies using a similar intervention, although different laboratory tests were targeted.1,2,5,6,10,17
Our study found lower test result reductions than those reported by a previous study, which reported a relative reduction of 17% to 30%,18 and by another investigation that was conducted recently in a similar setting.17 In the latter study, reductions in laboratory testing were mostly found in nonroutine tests, and no significant improvements were noted in CBC, electrolytes, and creatine, the 3 tests we studied over the same duration.17 This may represent a ceiling effect to reducing laboratory testing, and efforts to reduce CBC, electrolytes, and creatinine testing beyond 0.3 to 0.4 tests per inpatient day (or combined 1.16 tests per inpatient day) may not be clinically appropriate or possible. This information can guide institutions to include other areas of overuse based on rates of utilization in order to maximize the benefits from a resource intensive intervention.
There are a number of limitations that merit discussion. First, observational studies do not demonstrate causation; however, to our knowledge, there were no other co-interventions that were being conducted during the study duration. One important note is that our project’s intervention began in July, at which point there are new internal medicine residents beginning their training. As the concept of resource allocation becomes more important, medical schools are spending more time educating students about Choosing Wisely, and, therefore, newer cohorts of residents may be more cognizant of appropriate blood testing. Second, this is a single-center study, limiting generalizability; however, we note that many other centers have reported similar findings. Another limitation is that we do not know whether there were any adverse clinical events associated with blood work ordering that was too restrictive, although informal tracking of STAT laboratory testing remained stable throughout the study period. It is important to ensure that blood work is ordered in moderation and tailored to patients using one’s clinical judgment.
Future Directions
We observed modest reductions in the quantity and costs associated with a quality improvement intervention aimed at reducing routine blood testing. A baseline rate of laboratory testing of less than 1 test per inpatient day may require including other target tests to drive down absolute utilization.
Corresponding author: Christine Soong, MD, MSc, 433-600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X5; Christine.soong@utoronto.ca.
Financial disclosures: None.
1. Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;178:431.
2. May TA, Clancy M, Critchfield J, et al. Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:200-206.
3. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Ebidia A, et al. Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:520-524.
4. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:903-908.
5. Attali, M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost-effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university-associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787-794.
6. Faisal A, Andres K, Rind JAK, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary routine laboratory tests through education of internal medicine residents. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94:716-719.
7. How to Improve. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2009. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/default.aspx. Accessed June 5, 2019.
8. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
9. Hicks L. Blood Draws Toolkit. Choosing Wisely Canada. 2017. https://choosingwiselycanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/CWC_BloodDraws_Toolkit.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2019.
10. Sadowski BW, Lane AB, Wood SM, et al. High-value, cost-conscious care: iterative systems-based interventions to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing. Am J Med. 2017;130:1112e1-1112e7.
11. Minerowicz C, Abel N, Hunter K, et al. Impact of weekly feedback on test ordering patterns. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21:763-768.
12. Calderon-Margalit R, Mor-Yosef S, et al. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243-248.
13. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-64.
14. American Society for Quality. Control chart. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/control-chart. Accessed November 5, 2020.
15. American Society for Quality. The 7 Basic Quality Tools For Process Improvement. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools. Accessed November 5, 2020.
16. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-464.
17. Ambasta A, Ma IWY, Woo S, et al. Impact of an education and multilevel social comparison-based intervention bundle on use of routine blood tests in hospitalised patients at an academic tertiary care hospital: a controlled pre-intervention post-intervention study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1-2.
18. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316:1061-1072.
1. Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;178:431.
2. May TA, Clancy M, Critchfield J, et al. Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:200-206.
3. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Ebidia A, et al. Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:520-524.
4. Feldman LS, Shihab HM, Thiemann D, et al. Impact of providing fee data on laboratory test ordering: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:903-908.
5. Attali, M, Barel Y, Somin M, et al. A cost-effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university-associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73:787-794.
6. Faisal A, Andres K, Rind JAK, et al. Reducing the number of unnecessary routine laboratory tests through education of internal medicine residents. Postgrad Med J. 2018;94:716-719.
7. How to Improve. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2009. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/default.aspx. Accessed June 5, 2019.
8. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
9. Hicks L. Blood Draws Toolkit. Choosing Wisely Canada. 2017. https://choosingwiselycanada.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/CWC_BloodDraws_Toolkit.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2019.
10. Sadowski BW, Lane AB, Wood SM, et al. High-value, cost-conscious care: iterative systems-based interventions to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing. Am J Med. 2017;130:1112e1-1112e7.
11. Minerowicz C, Abel N, Hunter K, et al. Impact of weekly feedback on test ordering patterns. Am J Manag Care. 2015;21:763-768.
12. Calderon-Margalit R, Mor-Yosef S, et al. An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:243-248.
13. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-64.
14. American Society for Quality. Control chart. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/control-chart. Accessed November 5, 2020.
15. American Society for Quality. The 7 Basic Quality Tools For Process Improvement. ASM website. https://asq.org/quality-resources/seven-basic-quality-tools. Accessed November 5, 2020.
16. Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:458-464.
17. Ambasta A, Ma IWY, Woo S, et al. Impact of an education and multilevel social comparison-based intervention bundle on use of routine blood tests in hospitalised patients at an academic tertiary care hospital: a controlled pre-intervention post-intervention study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1-2.
18. Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA. 2016;316:1061-1072.
Patient health suffers amid pandemic health care shortages
More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.
In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened.
“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.
One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”
Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.
Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.
“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic.
The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.
Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.
“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.
In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened.
“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.
One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”
Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.
Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.
“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic.
The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.
Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.
“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.
In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened.
“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.
One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”
Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.
Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.
“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic.
The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.
Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.
“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Value-based care stunted from delayed Stark and anti-kickback statute reform
Anti-kickback statutes (AKSs) were originally enacted in 1931 to stop Great Depression–era employers from circumventing wage provisions in federal contracts. Since its enactment, AKSs’ main focus has changed and is currently aimed at the health care industry. In addition to AKSs, Stark laws were enacted over 30 years ago to address physician self-referral of Medicare patients. Both laws comprise the government’s main tools for fighting fraud, waste, and abuse.
However, AKSs and Stark laws have not been updated to keep pace with changes in how medical practices do business and care for patients.
Over the years, additional interpretation and clarification has been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In DHHSs’ June 1, 2012 Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 there is guidance regarding legality of anesthesia services providers’ contract with physician-owned professional corporations or limited liability companies to provide anesthesia services. Specifically, it focused on the “company model” where owners of an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) create a separate company for anesthesia services which directly contracts with anesthesia providers and charges for the anesthesia services while the ASC charges for facility fees. Anyone with specific questions may request an advisory opinion from the OIG about the application of OIG’s fraud and abuse authorities and existing or proposed business arrangements. An OIG advisory opinion is legally binding on the requesting party and DHHS, but not on any other governmental department or agency. While advisory opinions are specific to the entity that requested it and specifically states, “This opinion may not be relied on by any persons other than [name redacted], the requestor of this opinion....” It captured the attention of the medical community. The AGA has argued that this opinion should not be interpreted to mean that all company model frameworks necessarily violate the AKSs and the OIG’s Advisor Opinions FAQ states no person or entity can rely on an advisory opinion issued to someone else. However, Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 has been cited in AKS investigations ever since.
When Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in 2015, it changed how physicians would be paid under Medicare and sought to transition physicians to a more value-based payment system. Physicians were incentivized to develop physician-driven payment models to improve efficiency and patient outcomes. However, existing Stark self-referral laws prohibit physicians from referring patients to an entity in which they have a financial interest. As a result, physician practices are unable to participate in many advanced alternative payment models. Stark laws, which have not been updated since their enactment 30 years ago, pose barriers to care coordination since they prohibit payment arrangements that consider volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the parties. These prohibitions stifle innovations in delivering care by inhibiting practices from incentivizing their physicians to deliver patient care more efficiently, because the practices cannot use resources from designated health services in rewarding or penalizing adherence to new clinical care pathways.
Congress recognized that the Stark law was a barrier to new health care delivery models. Congress, therefore, authorized the HHS Secretary to waive Stark self-referral and anti-kickback laws for accountable care organizations (ACOs). This waiver was not extended to physician-driven alternative payment models (APMs), that also need these exceptions to drive innovation in health care and to implement MACRA law as Congress intended.
AGA and the physician community have long sought to update Stark self-referral and AKSs. Last year, CMS proposed exceptions directed at value-based arrangements that would have allowed providers to participate in value-based arrangements while still protecting the Medicare program from potential abuses. Many of the changes that CMS proposed would have allowed physician practices to engage in value-based arrangements that would improve patient care and AGA provided comments on both the Stark and AKS proposed rules. However, CMS has not yet issued the final rules and has indicated that they will not issue a final rule on Stark which a lost opportunity to improve health care delivery.
On the legislative front, AGA supports S. 2051/H.R. 4206, the Medicare Care Coordination Improvement Act, which would provide CMS with the regulatory authority to create exceptions under the Stark law for APMs and to remove barriers in the current law to the development and operation of such arrangements. The legislation would allow CMS to waive the Stark laws for physicians seeking to develop and operate APMs similar to what Congress allowed for ACOs. The legislation would allow innovative payment models developed by gastroenterologists to be implemented in the Medicare program. Unfortunately, this legislation has received little traction in Congress.
Until meaningful regulatory and legislative reform updating both Stark and AKS occur, innovative payment models must wait and gastroenterologists and other providers will remain vulnerable to these outdated regulations. You can help us advance these issues by sharing how they impact your practice. Tell us what types of value-based arrangements you would participate in and how would they improve patient care and efficacy at Lnarramore@gastro.org.
Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee and is a partner with Elgin Gastro Endoscopy, who owns and ASC, and Managing Partner and Medical Director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group/GI Alliance, Elgin, Ill.
This story was updated on 12/11/2020.
Anti-kickback statutes (AKSs) were originally enacted in 1931 to stop Great Depression–era employers from circumventing wage provisions in federal contracts. Since its enactment, AKSs’ main focus has changed and is currently aimed at the health care industry. In addition to AKSs, Stark laws were enacted over 30 years ago to address physician self-referral of Medicare patients. Both laws comprise the government’s main tools for fighting fraud, waste, and abuse.
However, AKSs and Stark laws have not been updated to keep pace with changes in how medical practices do business and care for patients.
Over the years, additional interpretation and clarification has been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In DHHSs’ June 1, 2012 Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 there is guidance regarding legality of anesthesia services providers’ contract with physician-owned professional corporations or limited liability companies to provide anesthesia services. Specifically, it focused on the “company model” where owners of an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) create a separate company for anesthesia services which directly contracts with anesthesia providers and charges for the anesthesia services while the ASC charges for facility fees. Anyone with specific questions may request an advisory opinion from the OIG about the application of OIG’s fraud and abuse authorities and existing or proposed business arrangements. An OIG advisory opinion is legally binding on the requesting party and DHHS, but not on any other governmental department or agency. While advisory opinions are specific to the entity that requested it and specifically states, “This opinion may not be relied on by any persons other than [name redacted], the requestor of this opinion....” It captured the attention of the medical community. The AGA has argued that this opinion should not be interpreted to mean that all company model frameworks necessarily violate the AKSs and the OIG’s Advisor Opinions FAQ states no person or entity can rely on an advisory opinion issued to someone else. However, Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 has been cited in AKS investigations ever since.
When Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in 2015, it changed how physicians would be paid under Medicare and sought to transition physicians to a more value-based payment system. Physicians were incentivized to develop physician-driven payment models to improve efficiency and patient outcomes. However, existing Stark self-referral laws prohibit physicians from referring patients to an entity in which they have a financial interest. As a result, physician practices are unable to participate in many advanced alternative payment models. Stark laws, which have not been updated since their enactment 30 years ago, pose barriers to care coordination since they prohibit payment arrangements that consider volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the parties. These prohibitions stifle innovations in delivering care by inhibiting practices from incentivizing their physicians to deliver patient care more efficiently, because the practices cannot use resources from designated health services in rewarding or penalizing adherence to new clinical care pathways.
Congress recognized that the Stark law was a barrier to new health care delivery models. Congress, therefore, authorized the HHS Secretary to waive Stark self-referral and anti-kickback laws for accountable care organizations (ACOs). This waiver was not extended to physician-driven alternative payment models (APMs), that also need these exceptions to drive innovation in health care and to implement MACRA law as Congress intended.
AGA and the physician community have long sought to update Stark self-referral and AKSs. Last year, CMS proposed exceptions directed at value-based arrangements that would have allowed providers to participate in value-based arrangements while still protecting the Medicare program from potential abuses. Many of the changes that CMS proposed would have allowed physician practices to engage in value-based arrangements that would improve patient care and AGA provided comments on both the Stark and AKS proposed rules. However, CMS has not yet issued the final rules and has indicated that they will not issue a final rule on Stark which a lost opportunity to improve health care delivery.
On the legislative front, AGA supports S. 2051/H.R. 4206, the Medicare Care Coordination Improvement Act, which would provide CMS with the regulatory authority to create exceptions under the Stark law for APMs and to remove barriers in the current law to the development and operation of such arrangements. The legislation would allow CMS to waive the Stark laws for physicians seeking to develop and operate APMs similar to what Congress allowed for ACOs. The legislation would allow innovative payment models developed by gastroenterologists to be implemented in the Medicare program. Unfortunately, this legislation has received little traction in Congress.
Until meaningful regulatory and legislative reform updating both Stark and AKS occur, innovative payment models must wait and gastroenterologists and other providers will remain vulnerable to these outdated regulations. You can help us advance these issues by sharing how they impact your practice. Tell us what types of value-based arrangements you would participate in and how would they improve patient care and efficacy at Lnarramore@gastro.org.
Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee and is a partner with Elgin Gastro Endoscopy, who owns and ASC, and Managing Partner and Medical Director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group/GI Alliance, Elgin, Ill.
This story was updated on 12/11/2020.
Anti-kickback statutes (AKSs) were originally enacted in 1931 to stop Great Depression–era employers from circumventing wage provisions in federal contracts. Since its enactment, AKSs’ main focus has changed and is currently aimed at the health care industry. In addition to AKSs, Stark laws were enacted over 30 years ago to address physician self-referral of Medicare patients. Both laws comprise the government’s main tools for fighting fraud, waste, and abuse.
However, AKSs and Stark laws have not been updated to keep pace with changes in how medical practices do business and care for patients.
Over the years, additional interpretation and clarification has been issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In DHHSs’ June 1, 2012 Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 there is guidance regarding legality of anesthesia services providers’ contract with physician-owned professional corporations or limited liability companies to provide anesthesia services. Specifically, it focused on the “company model” where owners of an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) create a separate company for anesthesia services which directly contracts with anesthesia providers and charges for the anesthesia services while the ASC charges for facility fees. Anyone with specific questions may request an advisory opinion from the OIG about the application of OIG’s fraud and abuse authorities and existing or proposed business arrangements. An OIG advisory opinion is legally binding on the requesting party and DHHS, but not on any other governmental department or agency. While advisory opinions are specific to the entity that requested it and specifically states, “This opinion may not be relied on by any persons other than [name redacted], the requestor of this opinion....” It captured the attention of the medical community. The AGA has argued that this opinion should not be interpreted to mean that all company model frameworks necessarily violate the AKSs and the OIG’s Advisor Opinions FAQ states no person or entity can rely on an advisory opinion issued to someone else. However, Advisory Opinion No. 12-06 has been cited in AKS investigations ever since.
When Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in 2015, it changed how physicians would be paid under Medicare and sought to transition physicians to a more value-based payment system. Physicians were incentivized to develop physician-driven payment models to improve efficiency and patient outcomes. However, existing Stark self-referral laws prohibit physicians from referring patients to an entity in which they have a financial interest. As a result, physician practices are unable to participate in many advanced alternative payment models. Stark laws, which have not been updated since their enactment 30 years ago, pose barriers to care coordination since they prohibit payment arrangements that consider volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the parties. These prohibitions stifle innovations in delivering care by inhibiting practices from incentivizing their physicians to deliver patient care more efficiently, because the practices cannot use resources from designated health services in rewarding or penalizing adherence to new clinical care pathways.
Congress recognized that the Stark law was a barrier to new health care delivery models. Congress, therefore, authorized the HHS Secretary to waive Stark self-referral and anti-kickback laws for accountable care organizations (ACOs). This waiver was not extended to physician-driven alternative payment models (APMs), that also need these exceptions to drive innovation in health care and to implement MACRA law as Congress intended.
AGA and the physician community have long sought to update Stark self-referral and AKSs. Last year, CMS proposed exceptions directed at value-based arrangements that would have allowed providers to participate in value-based arrangements while still protecting the Medicare program from potential abuses. Many of the changes that CMS proposed would have allowed physician practices to engage in value-based arrangements that would improve patient care and AGA provided comments on both the Stark and AKS proposed rules. However, CMS has not yet issued the final rules and has indicated that they will not issue a final rule on Stark which a lost opportunity to improve health care delivery.
On the legislative front, AGA supports S. 2051/H.R. 4206, the Medicare Care Coordination Improvement Act, which would provide CMS with the regulatory authority to create exceptions under the Stark law for APMs and to remove barriers in the current law to the development and operation of such arrangements. The legislation would allow CMS to waive the Stark laws for physicians seeking to develop and operate APMs similar to what Congress allowed for ACOs. The legislation would allow innovative payment models developed by gastroenterologists to be implemented in the Medicare program. Unfortunately, this legislation has received little traction in Congress.
Until meaningful regulatory and legislative reform updating both Stark and AKS occur, innovative payment models must wait and gastroenterologists and other providers will remain vulnerable to these outdated regulations. You can help us advance these issues by sharing how they impact your practice. Tell us what types of value-based arrangements you would participate in and how would they improve patient care and efficacy at Lnarramore@gastro.org.
Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the American Medical Association’s CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee and is a partner with Elgin Gastro Endoscopy, who owns and ASC, and Managing Partner and Medical Director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group/GI Alliance, Elgin, Ill.
This story was updated on 12/11/2020.