Practice Management

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Half of fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine screened positive for either burnout or depressive symptoms, results from a national survey demonstrated.

“Given the high prevalence of burnout and depressive symptoms among fellows training in pulmonary and critical care medicine, it is crucial for fellowship training programs and academic hospitals to consider policies and programs that can improve this public health crisis,” first author Michelle Sharp, MD, MHS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in CHEST.

Dr. Sharp, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues developed a cross-sectional electronic survey to assess burnout and depression symptoms in fellows enrolled in pulmonary and critical care medicine training programs in the United States. Between January and February 2019, a total of 976 fellows received the survey, which used the Maslach Burnout Index two-item measure to assess burnout and the two-item Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Procedure to screen for depressive symptoms. For both burnout and depression, the researchers constructed three multivariate logistic regression models to assess individual fellow characteristics, program structure, and institutional policies associated with the symptoms.

Of the 976 surveys sent, 502 completed both outcome measures, for a response rate of 51%. More than half (59%) were male, 57% described themselves as White/non-Hispanic, and 39% reported at least $200,000 in student loan debt. The researchers found that 50% of respondents screened positive for either burnout of depressive symptoms. Specifically, 41% met criteria for depressive symptoms, 32% were positive for burnout, and 23% were positive for both.

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of burnout included working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80) and reporting a somewhat negative or very negative impact of the EHR on joy in medicine (aOR, 1.91).

Factors significantly associated with a higher odds of depressive symptoms were financial concern (aOR, 1.13), being located in the Association of American Medical Colleges West region (aOR 3.96), working more than 70 hours in an average clinical week (aOR, 2.24), and spending a moderately high or excessive amount of time at home on the EHR (aOR, 1.71).

Of respondents who reported working in an institution with a coverage system for personal illness or emergency, 29% were uncomfortable accessing the system or felt comfortable only if unable to find their own coverage. In addition, among respondents who indicated that they had access to mental health resources through their place of employment, 15% said they were reluctant to access those resources if needed. Formal use of these programs was not measured by the survey.

“Our results suggest that further study of systemic solutions at the programmatic and institutional levels rather than at the individual level are needed,” Dr. Sharp and colleagues wrote. “Strategies such as providing an easily accessible coverage system, providing access to mental health resources, addressing work hour burden, reducing the EHR burden, and addressing financial concerns among trainees may help reduce burnout and/or depressive symptoms and should be further studied.”

In an interview, David Schulman, MD, FCCP, characterized the survey findings as “disheartening” but not surprising. “Burnout and depressive symptoms are a problem because almost everything we do to mitigate them works a little, but nothing works a lot,” said Dr. Schulman, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, allergy, critical care, and sleep medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not affiliated with the study. “The limited availability of resources to fight this is a challenge. The thing that seems to correlate best with mitigating burnout and depression rates is just giving people time. In my experience, most people just want the space and time they need to mitigate burnout in their own way by having schedule flexibility or arranging time to spend with family or involved in other wellness activities.”

Dr. Schulman, who served as training program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows at Emory for 14 years until stepping down from that role in September 2020, said that nurturing a culture where trainees and seasoned colleagues are comfortable talking about burnout and depressive symptoms is one way to foster change. “It’s weird to say that we should try to normalize burnout, but I don’t think the health care system is changing anytime soon. The health care system is a harsh mistress. It will continue to take and take from everyone involved in it until they have nothing left to give. It’s unfortunate, because people are sick, and hospitals can be relatively understaffed, particularly in the context of a major public health emergency. What we really need to do is try to normalize this by saying to trainees: ‘Hey. Everybody is under the gun. We’re going to share in this workload together because we can’t abandon our patients. We will do our best to make sure that the workload is shared amongst everybody.’ ”

He emphasized that most trainees recognize the importance of the work they do, “and they don’t shirk from it. But I think that drive sometimes gets in the way of self-care. I do think there needs to be a happy medium, where we definitely want you to work, because that’s how you learn and the system needs you, but we also recognize that there’s a need for you to take care of yourself.”

Dr. Schulman recommended that such discussions take place not remotely on Zoom calls and the like but rather in person with small groups of trainees and seasoned clinicians, “where people are more comfortable candidly discussing how they’re feeling. I don’t think grand rounds on burnout or depression are particularly effective. It needs to be interactive, and we need to listen as much as we’re talking.”

Although the survey by Dr. Sharp and colleagues was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Schulman has a hunch that the current driver of burnout and depression has more to do with trainees feeling a sense of physical isolation than with being overwhelmed by their workload. “I don’t think that’s unique to medicine,” he said. “When people get home from work, they can’t go out with friends or out to dinner, or travel, whatever they do to decompress. I think that’s a major driver for the current phenomenon, and I don’t think that’s unique to medicine. The psychological ramifications of isolation due to the coronavirus may eventually outpace the physical ramifications of all the illness that we have seen. Depression and burnout may not be as obviously damaging to people, but I think they’re affecting many more people than the virus itself.”

The survey was supported by the Association of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Program Directors.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

 

 

It takes a village

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

 

 

Prioritizing “out of office” time

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

 

 

Thinking about upcoming generations

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

 

 

It takes a village

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

 

 

Prioritizing “out of office” time

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

 

 

Thinking about upcoming generations

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

Patrick J. Culligan, MD: We all know that burnout is an important problem among surgeons. In fact, it seems that, in the United States, we are working longer hours than ever before, and that higher education correlates with less balance in life. This dysfunction seems to start in school, when we are encouraged to be competitive, and overwork just becomes another way to compete. It’s very easy to get swept up in the traditional model of academic medicine, the engine of which is competition and overwork.

My impression of our younger colleagues, however, is that many of them are not attracted to the traditional ivory tower research model of academic advancement to which many in previous generations aspired. They seem more concerned with work-life balance as their measure of success rather than the classic metrics of money and prestige. Everyone still needs role models and mentors, though, and that’s where all of you come in. I asked each of you to be on this panel because I admire you for your varying approaches to work-life balance while achieving success as gynecologic surgeons. I thought others in the field might be inspired by hearing your stories.

Cultivating your passions

Kristie Greene, MD: What I have come to learn and appreciate is a really simple point: you do not have to do everything. Determining who you want to be both personally and professionally is step 1.

Granted, answering the question, “Who do I want to be?” is not as simple as it sounds. Many factors figure into the decisions we make in our personal and professional lives. Also, it is not a question we often stop and ask ourselves. From early on, we are placed on an escalator moving up through medical school, residency, fellowship, good job, better job, etc. We are so accustomed to being competitive, to winning, and to wanting to be the best that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves, “What is it exactly that I want, and why? What is my endpoint? And does it make me happy?”

Multitasking is regarded as a talent. As much as we would like to believe that we can do everything at the same time and do it all well, we actually can’t. A friend of mine made me read a book a couple of years ago, called Feeling Good, by David Burns. The book encourages you to consider the different tasks you do in a day and rate how good you are at each of them on a scale of 1 to 10. It then asks you to think about how much enjoyment you derive from each of the tasks and about why you are doing the ones that bring you little to no enjoyment.

I ultimately decided that, for me professionally, the most important thing was my interest in global health. So I decided to do whatever it took to make this happen. But you don’t get something for nothing, and everything comes with sacrifices.

Continue to: Charles Rardin, MD...

Charles Rardin, MD: How exactly did you decide that you were going to focus your career toward pursuing international health? How did you know it was more important? And how did you overcome some of those obstacles?

Dr. Greene: You have to ask the hard question again about what brings you the most joy professionally and personally. That was the easy part of it for me because global health has always been that source of happiness and fulfillment for me. The more challenging parts are the sacrifices and hard choices that come with it. With global health, it can be difficult to balance the demands of a clinical practice.

All of our jobs are a business. I am still struggling with the money part of it. For my husband and I, that meant we had to start small—do what we could afford. But then it blossomed into something that was involving residents, fellows, and med students, which requires far more funding than we had. So I reached out to family. Most of our families donate to different organizations or charities every year, so why not donate to a loved one for something they are passionate about?

At the University of South Florida (USF), we set up a fund, a foundation for global health, which helps support our work abroad as well as the costs associated with involvement of our trainees. Right now, what we have is still small potatoes to a country, but we are making it happen by starting at a small level and growing it.

Beyond the money aspect, traveling abroad means less involvement in meetings, missed opportunities to teach courses that might interest me, and time away from my family. I guess my advice on this whole thing is that you can make things happen if they are important enough to you, and if you are willing to make sacrifices in other areas because you can’t have it all.

Making time for you

Dr. Culligan: So you have found what is important to you, and you have found a way to make it happen. But you are faced with more work; you have given yourself additional work on top of your regular work. How do you make time for a personal life?

Catherine Matthews, MD: In preparing for this discussion, I decided to break down my advice into 3 buckets: The first bucket is discovering and knowing your authentic self. The second is building a community, which I’ll elaborate on. And the third, which we have discussed, is to let go of the money.

Dr. Culligan: I love the concept of the authentic self, but how does that jive with a tendency to strive for perfection? We all think we can do it all. How do we narrow down to what really matters?

Dr. Matthews: We often focus on the things that bring us happiness and what we are good at, but it’s the things that make us unhappy that tend to bring us down. It’s the presence of unhappiness, not the absence of happiness, that seems to be the undoing of many, including myself.

None of us are born with dramatic insight. It is experience that leads to insight. People who are actually present are able to gain insight through observation. A person becomes a better surgeon by observing the outcome of doing a stitch this way versus that; you learn how to do it by seeing what it looks like afterward.

Finding our authentic selves happens in much the same way. Having the presence of mind to ask the right questions, such as, “How am I feeling while I’m doing this?” leads to insights into the true self.

Continue to: It takes a village...

 

 

It takes a village

Dr. Greene: Catherine mentioned community earlier, and that is extremely important. The people who surround us can have a huge impact on the way we perceive things, including ourselves. Having a mix of people in our lives—some who practice medicine and others who don’t—helps us stay balanced and answer some of the tough questions. Catherine, for example, has helped me in various stages of my career to ask myself meaningful questions and get real answers.

Dr. Rardin: Part of finding balance is luck, and part of it is making a choice between money and everything else. In considering my first job out of training, I knew that money had the potential to distract me from what was important to me. So I chose a position that was almost entirely salaried so that the decisions I made clinically, surgically, and regarding work-life balance would be less likely to directly impact what was important to me.

Sally Huber, MD: I am still in the “getting there” phase of my life, but one thing I have found is that getting my family involved and excited about what I do has made them much more accepting of when I have longer work days or work to do on the weekend. My spouse has become quite involved with what I have been doing with transgender health in Atlanta. It has been a great bonding experience; she shares my passions, and together we are creating something about which we both can be proud.

When work invades home life

Dr. Culligan: That is great. Sally, I think when we talked, you were just learning about the necessity of mental separation and of not taking your work home with you, which is so hard for all of us with all of our devices.

Dr. Huber: Yes, this year has been about seeing what works best as far as being efficient at work and having quality time at home. At the end of every day I ask myself, “What worked well today? What didn’t work well? What else can I do to maximize time with my family?” I am slowly becoming more efficient, but it has been a challenge. During fellowship, your day is pretty set, but once you are practicing on your own, your hours and responsibilities are completely different, and you have to figure out what works best for you, your values, and your expectations of private life. It takes some time, and I am still figuring it out.

Dr. Culligan: How often would you say that you bring work home? I try hard once I am home to quit working, but sometimes on the weekends I break that rule.

Dr. Matthews: I must say that I do feel like there are certain times when I am better at that than others. Work comes in waves with pressing deadlines. If I averaged it out, probably a third of the time I have some email or some conference call or something that I have got to do at home. I do really try to limit the obligations that I have after 5:30 or 6:00 pm. I resent intrusions after that time. As far as weekends, I delegate about one weekend every 2 months to work, instead of doing a little bit every weekend.

Dr. Greene: I agree. I try hard to make 5:30 to 7:30 pm unequivocal time for a family dinner and time for my kids. During that time, I do not have my phone near me so I can’t look at email or texts. I try not to schedule conference calls. I try to be there to read books to my kids at night. Then if I need to do work, I do it later at night, which interferes with time with my spouse, and is not ideal, but that’s what happens.

Dr. Matthews: One of the things that I think is a huge part of work-life balance is work-related travel. When you are present at work on a consistent basis, the work does not pile up to the extent that it does when you are absent on a trip. When you come back, you invariably pay the price by seeing more patients and doing more surgery. Then it becomes a stressful event.

My advice to young people is to be very thoughtful about planning trips, especially distant ones. You do not want to sit on a plane all day when you could be doing something more productive. If I could have done something differently in my mid-career, I would have traveled less.

Continue to: Prioritizing “out of office” time...

 

 

Prioritizing “out of office” time

Dr. Greene: How do you all mentally separate yourself from work, so that when you are on vacation with your family you are not thinking about the office, the patients, and all of the things on your to-do list?

Dr. Rardin: I don’t have a great answer for that except that it is about being present. You have to decide that now is the time when I am home, now is the time when I am a parent, now is the time when I am a boy scout leader, etc. I guess maybe it’s a skill, or maybe it’s about making something a priority. Work will always be waiting for you when you turn your attention back to it.

Dr. Matthews: Kristie, the answer to your question goes back to community. Partners in a practice cover for each other. You have to trust them to take care of things so that you can relax during your time away.

Some people recommend not scheduling challenging cases right before going away because invariably something goes wrong, and then you are asking, “Why did I schedule 3 colpopexies before getting on a plane?”

Dr. Rardin: Yes, I completely agree with all of that. Personally, I feel fortunate that I can compartmentalize pretty well. When I am home with my kids, I allow myself to shed some of the doctor/surgeon/leadership persona; I am able to be goofy and completely non–doctor-like. It works to help me leave work behind.

Dr. Matthews: Other things you can do include setting up an out-of-office notice on your email that says when you will be back and what to do in case of urgent matters. This basically says to the world, “Don’t expect to hear from me until X date.” It removes the expectation that you will respond sooner. Otherwise, we would all be on our smartphones all the time and not enjoying our time away.

What I wish I knew then

Dr. Culligan: How would you complete the sentence, “I wish they had told me X when I was embarking on my career?”

Dr. Rardin: I keep coming back to the phrase, “Don’t do anything that you can reasonably pay someone else to do.” By that I mean, if you don’t get energy from housework, consider spending some of your money to get help with the housework. Resolve to make a relatively small expenditure to maximize the quality of the time that you give to yourself and your family. Those are the sorts of things that I think can go a long way.

Dr. Culligan: Charley, your wife is an ObGyn. How do you navigate a dual medical career household? What advice do you have for others?

Dr. Rardin: When I was going into fellowship, we had a conversation about how hard it is for both people in a relationship to have an academic fire in the belly and to be truly engaged in climbing the academic ladder. We made a decision that Jane would go into private practice. There has got to be some give and take in a dual medical relationship; a lot of sacrifices and compromises need to happen. We are fortunate in that there are complementary aspects to our jobs. We both spend about the same number of nights away from the house, but my travel is more in chunks and hers is overnight calls for labor and delivery. We have different ways of (briefly) single-parenting, and you have to come up with ways to handle the domestic chores.

Dr. Matthews: I wish someone had explained to me that the people you work with are much more important than the place. The human connection is what defines your experience, much more than any ego-driven outcome.

Dr. Greene: I wish someone had explained to me the competing aspects of academic medicine. The cards are stacked in a way that make it difficult for you to win. For example, you may love to teach and may be really good at it, but if you let your students handle too many cases, your relative value units plummet and then the hospital is on your back. There are the interests of people, and there are the interests of the business. Everything is a balance, and it’s really tricky.

Dr. Huber: Luckily, Pat counselled me as I was finishing my fellowship about the importance of negotiating a good contract, of being pushy and knowing what you want out of it and knowing what your limitations are. I joined a private practice that had 3 different physical locations. If I had to drive to all of them, as they wanted, it would have meant up to a one-and-a-half-hour commute. But I pushed to stay in one location and to put that extra hour to better use. I am glad I did, but it was terrifying at the time because I didn’t want to lose the offer. I know people that did not do that and took the first thing they got. Now, they are driving all over the place or they have these crazy hours or terrible call responsibilities that if they had just been a little firmer, they probably could have gotten out of. As they start trying to find work-life balance, they are already handicapped.

Continue to: Passions outside the office...

Passions outside the office

Dr. Culligan: One thing I would like to touch on is what is going on in each of your personal lives because all of you have interesting stories to tell outside of what you do professionally. What drives you other than medicine?

Dr. Rardin: I am the father of 3 boys. The oldest one just got his Eagle Scout rank yesterday in Boy Scouts. I would be a woodworker if I wasn’t in medicine. I am a Deacon at church. And I love to spend my downtime reading with my family in front of the fireplace.

Dr. Matthews: For me, it’s music. When my husband and I first met, he asked me if I played a musical instrument. I said I played the cello in primary school. He said, “Great, go rent a cello.” I was never at all interested in playing the cello by myself, but because he plays guitar and piano we became able to play a lot of music together. Our son, Alexander, plays drums. We now have a family band.

In addition, I do yoga. I would never have labeled myself an anxious person, but I learned through this process that I am and need to manage it. It took a lot of years to figure that out. If I don’t leave myself an hour each day to go to a yoga class, I am not a happy person and neither is anyone around me. Also, I get tremendous pleasure from reading books and magazines as opposed to watching a screen.

Dr. Greene: I have found that my passions outside of work often change depending on my stage of life. Right now, I have two young babies and so my life outside of work revolves around them. Before the babies, my dad, who lives in Buffalo, was ill. So for awhile, we were flying to Buffalo almost every weekend that I was not on call. I would say, in general what fuels me is connecting with the people I love as often as I can. A typical night involves me and my husband going for a walk with our kids and dog after dinner and talking to each other. We connect with neighbors and chat on the front porch. It doesn’t really matter what we are doing; it is about being surrounded by people who matter.

Dr. Huber: It’s similar for me. Having a child completely shifts your world view. My goal every day is to give my daughter her first feeding in the morning and to get home as soon as possible at the end of the day to do her last feeding and put her to sleep. She crawled for the first time yesterday, and I was so excited that I could be there for that.

Also, I love being outdoors. I love hiking and camping. Going on a hike and being outside with nature is my way of decompressing.

Continue to: Thinking about upcoming generations...

 

 

Thinking about upcoming generations

Dr. Matthews: One other thing I would like to propose is looking at what can we do to make the profession better for the next generation. As a group, our profession is somewhat inflexible. We tend to fall into the trap of, “since this is the way we have always done it this is how we should continue doing it.” The OR still starts at 7:00 or 7:30 am, ignoring the need for school drop-offs, etc. We are not innovative about flexibility in the work week. Honestly, it does not work well for many people, patients and physicians alike. Flexible scheduling should be something that is on the table for both men and women who are trying to balance being full-time parents and full-time surgeons. We need to create an environment in which it is okay for you to spend 10 years instead of 6 as an assistant professor because you are also a young parent, and it will not count against you when you come up for promotion.

Dr. Culligan: I agree with you, Catherine. Full “Professor” is a nice title, but it means time away from family and a lot of other things. Each of us has to decide whether it is worth it, especially since it often does not come with any extra money.

Dr. Huber: A question on a recent survey of residents asked, “Do you see yourself going into private practice or academic medicine when you’ve completed your residency?” When I was a resident, everyone wanted to go into academic medicine, but now it seems like more and more residents have their sights set on private practice because that is where they see the opportunities to create work-life balance.

In the academic world, you have to try to get a promotion in X number of years, and get X number of publications, and be a great teacher, doctor, and administrator all at the same time. I am wondering if we are going to start seeing more and more residents and fellows going into private or hospital-owned practice where there aren’t those added expectations.

Dr. Rardin: I agree, and we are back to what we said in the beginning about doing an honest assessment of what is meaningful and important. We are all trained to try to reach for that shiny brass ring, but do we really want that brass ring? Will it be an asset or a hindrance once we get it? It is okay to be honest and say, “I really don’t want that promotion. I would rather spend more time with my family.” ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

© TRENDOBJECTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

I often say that there are both “guardrail” days and very good days when it comes to the ins and outs of health care builds and product launches. The process is much like starting down the path of a country road in the middle of a blizzard—unless you have dependable wipers and a good defrost system, that path can get murky very quickly. With this article I hope to offer my counsel to inventors, featuring a few of my prior launches as well as case studies of health care launches I was not involved with, and sharing the lessons learned and hurdles that were overcome. I encourage all entrepreneurs to act on their ideas because, in the world of health care startups, the only failure is not acting on an invention.

Case study 1: Cerezyme

Today, Cerezyme is indicated for patients with Gaucher, which is a lysosomal storage disorder. Cerezyme’s first-generation product, called Ceredase, was a human tissue-derived protein that we extracted from human placentas. At the time, the concept of moving this program forward was denied by the Board of Directors because they said that even if you could collect enough placentas to make the enzyme, it would be too expensive to manufacture. In fact, early scale-up modeling for manufacturing the protein demonstrated that Genzyme would need 4 tons of placentas per Gaucher patient per year.

Gaucher is a severe, early-onset disease that has a significant negative outcome for patients. Patients with Gaucher are in dire need of treatment. Genzyme went forward with the Ceredase program by financing it through the families of patients with the disease, by starting an LLC separate from the business and funding the initial clinical trial and the development of the protein through the families of Gaucher patients. That approach was a successful endeavor. A great example of a creative capital structure to advance a program.

This was in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and at the height of the AIDS challenge. Genzyme based the manufacturing in Lille, France, and we cryopreserved placentas in the United States and Europe and shipped them to Lille to be processed into therapy. Genzyme eventually received approval for Ceredase from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. At the height of the placenta collection, we were gathering about 10% to 15% of the placentas in the United States and 30% to 40% of the placentas in Europe. Resources supply became an issue until we developed a recombinant form of the protein, accomplished by using a manufacturing system called a CHO cell line.

This is a very good success story: If this invention was not pursued, Gaucher patients would not benefit from the treatment today. In addition, there are a plethora of patients with different lysosomal storage disorders treated with additional proteins that have been aided by us going through the entire development, manufacturing, and global commercialization process. We figured out how to manufacture and deliver the treatment, working through multiple countries’ political systems, and today the therapy is paid for by insurance and government systems on a worldwide basis.

Continue to: Case study 2...

Case study 2: ThinPrep

I like to use the approval of ThinPrep as an example of avoiding a false negative—a stoppage in the development of the product or drug for the wrong reasons. False negatives, in my mind, occur when you are developing a technology and you run into issues during the clinical phase and/or with FDA approval, or with a technical failure or you run out of capital prior to knowing whether or not the innovation actually works. In the case of ThinPrep, a poorly run clinical trial almost resulted in a false negative.

The company at the time was Cytyc, and an initial clinical study presented to the FDA yielded a neutral-negative outcome. The FDA said that there were not enough data to show the differentiation from the current Pap smear standard of care.

The founders of the company at that time had inherited the study protocol from a prior leadership team, so they had to finish the trial with the initial protocol. Given the FDA’s advisement, they developed a new trial. It took the persistence of these two founders, who mortgaged their homes and spent their personal dollars to take this through the next wave of clinical development. In the end it was successful. The revised clinical trial yielded an approval for ThinPrep, which is now considered a standard of care.

The use of ThinPrep reduced cervical cancer deaths by 40% from preapproval. The challenging path from clinical development to eventual commercial launch and physician leadership in advancing patient care makes the story of ThinPrep a great example of not allowing an early false negative of a poorly designed and run clinical trial stop important innovation.

Case study 3: Cologuard

The development of Cologuard is a case study demonstrating that, sometimes, when your first attempt does not work, you need to have the persistence to raise additional capital and/or use a slightly different technical approach. The approval story of Cologuard is important to share because it is an important cancer screening diagnostic, using DNA from stool samples to test for colon cancer, giving access to important colon cancer screening to many patients. Currently, caregivers are only scraping the surface with Cologuard’s ability to screen the population. There are many more patients that need access to the test, and I believe they will get it in the years ahead.

Cologuard went through a first- and second-generational technical failure. They could not get the test’s specificity and sensitivity to be at the level of a screening tool; there were too many false-positive results. With the third iteration came the technical breakthrough, and a very large, expensive study was conducted—one the leadership team was criticized for. However, that study yielded the data that achieved a New England Journal of Medicine article, and reimbursement support across the country. The combination of the right technical team and the right leadership team, who planned a proper commercial launch, with a CEO that supported the extensive clinical study, has resulted in the fourth generation of Cologuard—an important breakthrough offering a very useful new standard of care in colon cancer detection and screening.

Continue to: Pearls for moving your innovations forward...

Pearls for moving your innovations forward

Because of my experience in undergoing health care start-ups, and contributing to several of those advancements of innovation, many inventors approach me for advice on their paths from idea to full-concept company. Here are a few of my lessons learned.

Consider purpose, not financial gain, first and foremost. Financial gain is typically the by-product or outcome of a standard-of-care breakthrough for inventors, but it’s a very hard road. Pursue your invention for advancing patient care and moving a new standard of care forward in health care versus financial gain at the end.

Determine whether your invention is a product or a company, or potentially, not capitalizable at all. Figure this out early. Analyze your idea to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and to make sure it is sound and truly novel. Analyze the competition and the market dynamics to support a new product. Can the development path be defined very clearly to raise capital? Is your innovation a big enough breakthrough in the market with several current products to actually make a difference in patient outcomes (and eventually achieve product reimbursement)? The creation of a company may be the right strategy if the innovation can support a differentiated enough breakthrough where you can actually support all the infrastructure to build the business. If you find that the market is not there to support and develop your idea to eventual success, backing off early is important to preserve invested capital.

Protect early. Is your invention patentable, or has someone else already thought of the idea? What kind of patent(s) are appropriate? Where, geographically, do you want to protect your invention? Find a good patent attorney in your local area, early in the process, to help you answer all of these critical questions. Patents are expensive to file and maintain, but it is not expensive to do a literature search to find out if your idea is novel. A provisional patent, which would be your first step, is an important cost-effective step.

Capital is out there. If your invention or idea deserves capital, it is available. I will address raising capital in more detail in the next section.

Consider regulatory and manufacturing as achievable hurdles. Inventors often get tripped up here, considering the regulatory hurdles and manufacturing too challenging and abandoning their ideas because the risk is too great. Regulatory and manufacturing are very important aspects of health care standard-of-care builds. Cutting corners is not an option. That said, regulatory and manufacturing should not stop you. Challenges often can be worked through as long as the clinical need is there, and the clinical data support bringing that technology forward.

Consider corporate partnerships. I am a fan of corporate partners. But which ones should you target, and when and why? Corporate partnerships can bring significant capital, which is great, but there is enough investor capital out there that you should not pursue a corporate partner just for capital. The main benefit of a corporate partner is enterprise intellect. They typically know more about the field that you are entering than the investors or a small company leadership team.

Establish and listen to advisors. When thinking about who to trust, research their track record. Advisors who have gone through this process before, and specifically in your product area, are important to have access to.

Persistence is key. I have observed a tremendous “compression of innovation” in the health care areas that I have been involved with—human tissue-derived proteins, robotic surgery, stem cell therapy, and digital health (which is still in its infancy). For each of these breakthrough categories, early on, it appeared that it couldn’t be done. However, after the first 2 or 3 major breakthroughs in each one of these areas, a compression of innovation occurred. For instance, after approximately 15 years of protein development, we came out with the recombinant manufacturing systems for proteins. Very quickly, within 10 years, there were more than 70 proteins on the market. The persistence of the inventors to overcome early obstacles in each of these health care areas was critical to future success in each area.

Continue to: Raising capital...

Raising capital

There are different investors who specialize in different types of investment opportunities. The first phase of raising capital is the seed round—where there is typically early data, or even no data and just a concept. From this seed round forward, there is less risk as you develop your technology; thus, there are different investors that support different stages of development and that specialize in different types of investing. It is important to target the right investors and raise enough capital to be able to go achieve multiple operational milestones. Otherwise, when you go through your first round of capital, or the Series A or B financing rounds, there may not be a set of investors out there to fund the company moving forward. Health care investors will make it known that they invest in certain rounds of capital. You can determine who those investors are by doing a search online.

A mistake health care inventors can make is not taking enough capital from investors, because they are concerned about dilution. I advise investors not to focus on dilution but rather on, how big can you make “the pie” (value of the company) worth? The entire process is about bringing a true product through to a new standard-of-care curve.

Trust is the most important thing to earn with investors, and there is zero tolerance for a lack of trust. Share your vision as the inventor with investors, who want to know where this category could be in the next 5 or 10 years. Clinical data will always win, and health care investors and industry leaders should be focused on executing the most robust clinical data to demonstrate the clearest potential clinical outcome. Investors will follow a good plan that has been developed to achieve FDA approval, successful commercialization or “go to market” launch, and eventual reimbursement to support a true standard-of-care change.

Failure is defined by inaction

The 3 case studies that I have shared were success stories because the ideas and inventions were acted upon. When I was at Genzyme, we built the company up to more than $1 billion in revenue. We commercialized proteins in over 50 countries. Most importantly, many patients benefited from the innovation. If you have an invention and an idea, act on it—and surround yourself with great people in every discipline. Having the right people and team is extremely important. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

 

 

Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

 

 

Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

 

 

Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic drove down the number of primary care visits and altered the method – moving many to telehealth appointments instead of in-person visits – the content of those appointments also changed, researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. Specifically, researchers found that preventive and chronic care for cardiovascular risk management dropped off during the first half of 2020 vs previous years.

For the study, G. Caleb Alexander, MD, from the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues analyzed data from the IQVIA National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative audit of outpatient care in the United States, from the first quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2020.

Most primary care visits in 2018 and 2019 were office based, the authors noted. In the second quarter (Q2, April-May) of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, the total number of primary care encounters decreased by 21.4%, and the number of office visits dropped by 50.2%, compared with the average of visits during Q2 in 2018 and 2019.

At the same time, telemedicine visits increased from just 1.1% of total visits in Q2 of 2018 and 2019 to 4.1% of visits in the first quarter (January through March) of 2020 and to 35.3% of visits in Q2 of 2020.

The authors also found that the use of telemedicine in the first half of 2020 varied by geographical region and was not associated with the regional COVID-19 burden. In the Pacific region (Washington, Oregon, and California), 26.8% of encounters were virtual. By contrast, the proportion of telemedicine encounters accounted for only 15.1% of visits in the East North Central states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio).

Adults between the ages of 19 and 55 years were more likely to attend telemedicine visits than were those younger or older. Additionally, adults who were commercially insured were more likely to adopt telemedicine versus those with public or no insurance. The study did not find substantial differences in telemedicine use by payer type, nor evidence of a racial disparity between Black and White people in their use of telemedicine.
 

Drop-off in preventive and chronic care

During the second quarter of this year, the authors reported, the number of visits that included blood pressure assessments dropped by 50.1% and the number of visits in which cholesterol levels were assessed fell by 36.9%, compared with the Q2 of 2018 and 2019.

Visits in which providers prescribed new antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering medications decreased by 26% in Q2 of 2020 versus the same periods in the previous 2 years. The number of visits in which such prescriptions were renewed dropped by 8.9%.

New treatments also decreased significantly in Q2 of 2020 for patients with chronic conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, asthma, depression, and insomnia.

When the authors compared the content of telemedicine versus in-person visits in Q2 of 2020, they found a substantial difference. Blood pressure was assessed in 69.7% of office visits, compared with 9.6% of telemedicine. Similarly, cholesterol levels were evaluated in 21.6% of office visits versus 13.5% of telemedicine encounters. New medications were ordered in similar proportions of office-based and telemedicine visits.

The authors concluded that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with changes in the structure of primary care delivery, with the content of telemedicine visits differing from that of office-based encounters.”

While limited in scope, the authors noted, their study is one of the first to evaluate the changes in the content of primary care visits during the pandemic. They attributed the decline in evaluations of cardiovascular risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol to “fewer total visits and less frequent assessments during telemedicine encounters.”

While pointing to the inherent limitations of telemedicine, the study did not mention the availability of digital home blood pressure cuffs or home cholesterol test kits. Both kinds of devices are available at consumer-friendly price points and can help people track their indicators, but they’re not considered a substitute for sphygmomanometers used in offices or conventional lab tests. It’s not known how many consumers with cardiovascular risk factors have this kind of home monitoring equipment or how many doctors look at this kind of data.

Dr. Alexander reported serving as a paid adviser to IQVIA; that he is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation; and that he is a member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. One coauthor reported serving as an unpaid adviser to IQVIA and receiving personal fees from the states of California, Washington, and Alaska outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

Primary care is not bouncing back to its prepandemic status, according to a new survey published by the Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) and Larry A. Green Center.

Since mid-March these organizations have issued short weekly and biweekly surveys to U.S. primary care physicians in an attempt to find the pulse of the county’s first line of care. “There is not a federal office for primary care, and it’s been anemically funded for decades,” Rebecca Etz, PhD, said in an interview. Yet these clinics represent the front lines of U.S. health care, and it’s where most Americans go for care and COVID-19 care, said Dr. Etz, director of the Virginia-based Larry A. Green Center, which is devoted to primary care research, development, and advocacy.

The latest survey responses, collected between Sept. 4 and 6, confirm what researchers had suspected: Primary care isn’t on solid footing. Eighty-one percent of respondents disagreed emphatically that primary care has bounced back, and another 13% said things were better than earlier this year but not normal.

Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said that revenue and pay are significantly lower than they were before the pandemic and net losses threaten their practices’ viability. Almost half (49%) said their mental exhaustion from work was at an all-time high.

“Because of how our system is set up – it’s a fee-for-service model – the more patients you see, the more money you get,” said Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director at the Graham Center, a leading think tank on family medicine and health care policy. But the stay-at-home order, aversion to telehealth, and fear of in-person visits have been keeping patients away – and driving primary care revenue down. Even when practices transition to and expand their telehealth, payer reimbursement is not yet on parity with in-person visits.

Right now, primary care physicians are doing fewer procedures and spending more time on video visits. “So you may have the same overhead and time investment but you’re getting paid a fraction,” Dr. Etz said. In August, 50% of primary care physicians reported they were working the same or more hours per week as they did before the pandemic but for less money, according to an earlier survey from the Green Center and the PCC. That loss of revenue is compounded by the need for expensive personal protective equipment and preparation for the upcoming flu season, Dr. Etz said.
 

Ongoing surveys reveal stress

Over the last 20 weeks or so, the Green Center and PCC together have disseminated weekly (through June) or biweekly surveys to 100 professional organizations. Because there isn’t an entity that represents all of primary care and claims data take years to process, these surveys are intended to get real-time feedback from clinicians who are providing a lot of patient care during the pandemic.

The sample sizes are admittedly small, with the most recent survey including 489 clinicians. Dr. Jabbarpour noted, “489 – it’s a good number, but you would want more.” Generally, for a great survey response you’d want 20%-30% of the physician population because then you could assume you’re getting a good mix of geographies, practice sizes, and settings, she said.

Respondents to the most recent survey were from 49 different states; 70% identified their practice as family medicine. One-third had between one and three physicians in their practice and 40% had 10 or more clinicians. “It’s not perfect, but it sounds pretty representative of the primary care workforce,” Dr. Jabbarpour continued.

The latest Green Center-PCC survey, published last week, also found that one in five physicians surveyed said at least one clinician in their practice had opted for early retirement or left practice as a direct result of the pandemic. These declines in clinician staffing come as school reopenings threaten to cause a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and the 2021 flu season could complicate COVID-19 care and testing.
 

Shortfall could cascade to other specialties

News that primary care is both struggling and shrinking doesn’t come as a surprise to those who research this area, according to Dr. Jabbarpour. Yet it matters “because primary care is where the majority of Americans get their health care.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, primary care accounts for 50% of all office visits. But the sector only encompasses 30% of the clinician workforce, according to a 2019 study of physician supply, and accounts for just 7% of national health expenditures, according to a separate 2019 study that measured primary care investment.

If primary care doesn’t bounce back, the shortfall could overwhelm the rest of the health care system, Dr. Jabbarpour said. “If primary care shortages increase, then urgent cares, ERs, and hospitals will become overwhelmed.”

Or public health could suffer as people don’t seek care at all. A study published earlier this summer found that up to 35% of excess deaths during the pandemic were not caused by COVID-19. Instead, they can be attributed to treatable causes, like heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers, the researchers concluded. In Dr. Etz’s estimation, this high cost is a glimpse of what happens when there isn’t adequate access to primary care.

When asked about the frequency of the PCC/Green Center surveys, Bianca Frogner, PhD, a health economist and deputy director at the University of Washington Primary Care Innovation Lab in Seattle, said it’s unusual to have this regularity. Also, it’s unique in that it offers a constant mix of physicians. “It’s a small sample, but it still gives a voice where there isn’t one.”

Smaller weekly surveys and secondary analysis projects from the Graham Center, an American Academy of Family Physicians affiliated research center, reinforce findings of the Green Center. The Graham Center surveys also found primary care is taking a financial hit, staff is being furloughed, and patient volume is down, according to Dr. Jabbarpour, who has been involved in most of the Graham Center’s work on COVID.

Dr. Frogner, Dr. Etz, and Dr. Jabbarpour agree that, as a nation, the United States has chronically underinvested in primary care, and now the system is in crisis. The hope is that the survey data gives policymakers, state leaders, and the federal government a better idea of what’s happening on the ground.

It’s also important for researchers “keeping an eye out for the available supply of primary care for certain populations,” Dr. Frogner said. The current conditions are especially a threat to rural and underserved areas, she added.

If primary health care isn’t near recovery that’s a problem for the entire population, Dr. Etz said. And what happens if there’s another surge of COVID-19 or even a second pandemic in our lifetime? Her recommendation: Treat it like disaster recovery. Step one is “Stop the hemorrhaging – they need immediate cash flow.”
 

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

It’s no secret that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical practice and led to a surge in telemedicine visits. A new report issued by the health care social network Doximity in September predicts that these changes will be permanent, and that the telehealth industry will more than triple from $29 billion at the end of this year to about $106 billion by 2023.

The report, titled “2020 State of Telemedicine,” follows a similar 2019 publication and captures the changes created by the pandemic. “Obviously, telemedicine has been around for many years, but the pandemic around COVID-19 has really changed the game. Something that had been getting gradual adoption really rocketed to the forefront,” said Peter Alparin, MD, who is an internist in San Francisco and vice president of product at Doximity, in an interview. The report predicts that 20% of medical visits will be conducted through telemedicine by the end of 2020.

Gastroenterology is one of the top specialties to adopt telemedicine, ranking third behind endocrinology and rheumatology, and that should come as no surprise. “Chronic disease patients lend themselves well to telemedicine because they have ongoing relationships with their physicians, so they can be seen more often and it’s more convenient for them. The specialties that take care of patients with those sorts of illnesses were the ones that adopted it the most readily,” said Dr. Alparin.

That’s probably in part because specialists dealing with chronic conditions have been triaging patients with telephone calls for years, making it easier to tell when a patient needs to come in for a physical visit. “It’s a skill you learn, to tell when something is just a little bit different for a patient. It’s really a clinical judgment that has been honed over years of experience,” said Dr. Alparin. The report backs up that idea, as it found that the physician age groups that most often adopted telemedicine were those in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Telemedicine is popular with patients once they try it, and it can greatly expand a physician’s reach, according to Dr. Alparin. “If you’re a specialist, you can perhaps see patients in areas where that specialty is underrepresented, whether that’s the inner city or a very rural area,” he said. The most important barrier is high-speed Internet access, which remains a problem in many areas.

Doximity researchers surveyed more than 2,000 U.S. adults to get their opinions on telemedicine, and analyzed telemedicine adoption data from the platform’s own set of telemedicine tools, and compared it to data from the 2019 report. They also reviewed studies looking at disparities in medicine and patient access to telemedicine.

Telemedicine use among patients grew from 14% before the pandemic, to 35% who reported at least one telemedicine visit after COVID-19. A total of 23% said they planned to continue use of telemedicine after the pandemic ends, and 27% said they had become more comfortable using telemedicine. Among patients, 28% said telemedicine provides the same or better benefit as an in-person visit, and this rose to 53% among those with chronic illnesses.

Among physicians, telemedicine adoption rose by 20% between 2015 and 2018, but increased by 38% between 2019 and 2020. The highest percentage of physician telemedicine adopters were in large metro areas and East Coast states, led by Massachusetts, North Carolina, and New Jersey. None of the top 10 adopter states were west of Illinois.

Equity concerns remain: 64.3% of households with annual incomes of $25,000 or lower have access to broadband internet, compared with 93.5% of those with incomes of $50,000 or lower. In nonmetropolitan areas, 78.1% of households have access, compared with 86.7% of metropolitan households. The good news is that many patients prefer cell phone use for telemedicine, and nearly as many Black and Hispanic Americans own cell phones as White Americans. “That has really democratized access,” said Dr. Alperin.

A key to successful telemedicine appointments is to make sure that the patient is prepared, according to Dr. Alparin. Make sure the patient is in a relatively quiet, well-lit place, and that they have thought about the questions they want to ask. It’s possible to replicate some aspects of a physical appointment with the right conditions. “You can visualize how they move their arms and legs; you can see how they’re breathing. You can gain a lot of information by just watching somebody,” said Dr. Alparin. A physician might also spot clues in the patient’s surroundings. “If a patient is asthmatic and you see cats walking all over the place, or a patient is allergic to gluten and they have loaves of bread everywhere,” he added.

A big concern for telemedicine has been reimbursement. In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created a number of waivers to requirements for billing for telemedicine services, and private insurers followed suit. In August, the agency announced it would make some of those waivers permanent, though others such as removal of restrictions on the site of care, eligible providers, and nonrural areas will likely require an act of Congress to enshrine, CMS administrator Seema Verma told reporters at an August press conference.

SOURCE: 2020 State of Telemedicine Report.

It’s no secret that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical practice and led to a surge in telemedicine visits. A new report issued by the health care social network Doximity in September predicts that these changes will be permanent, and that the telehealth industry will more than triple from $29 billion at the end of this year to about $106 billion by 2023.

The report, titled “2020 State of Telemedicine,” follows a similar 2019 publication and captures the changes created by the pandemic. “Obviously, telemedicine has been around for many years, but the pandemic around COVID-19 has really changed the game. Something that had been getting gradual adoption really rocketed to the forefront,” said Peter Alparin, MD, who is an internist in San Francisco and vice president of product at Doximity, in an interview. The report predicts that 20% of medical visits will be conducted through telemedicine by the end of 2020.

Gastroenterology is one of the top specialties to adopt telemedicine, ranking third behind endocrinology and rheumatology, and that should come as no surprise. “Chronic disease patients lend themselves well to telemedicine because they have ongoing relationships with their physicians, so they can be seen more often and it’s more convenient for them. The specialties that take care of patients with those sorts of illnesses were the ones that adopted it the most readily,” said Dr. Alparin.

That’s probably in part because specialists dealing with chronic conditions have been triaging patients with telephone calls for years, making it easier to tell when a patient needs to come in for a physical visit. “It’s a skill you learn, to tell when something is just a little bit different for a patient. It’s really a clinical judgment that has been honed over years of experience,” said Dr. Alparin. The report backs up that idea, as it found that the physician age groups that most often adopted telemedicine were those in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Telemedicine is popular with patients once they try it, and it can greatly expand a physician’s reach, according to Dr. Alparin. “If you’re a specialist, you can perhaps see patients in areas where that specialty is underrepresented, whether that’s the inner city or a very rural area,” he said. The most important barrier is high-speed Internet access, which remains a problem in many areas.

Doximity researchers surveyed more than 2,000 U.S. adults to get their opinions on telemedicine, and analyzed telemedicine adoption data from the platform’s own set of telemedicine tools, and compared it to data from the 2019 report. They also reviewed studies looking at disparities in medicine and patient access to telemedicine.

Telemedicine use among patients grew from 14% before the pandemic, to 35% who reported at least one telemedicine visit after COVID-19. A total of 23% said they planned to continue use of telemedicine after the pandemic ends, and 27% said they had become more comfortable using telemedicine. Among patients, 28% said telemedicine provides the same or better benefit as an in-person visit, and this rose to 53% among those with chronic illnesses.

Among physicians, telemedicine adoption rose by 20% between 2015 and 2018, but increased by 38% between 2019 and 2020. The highest percentage of physician telemedicine adopters were in large metro areas and East Coast states, led by Massachusetts, North Carolina, and New Jersey. None of the top 10 adopter states were west of Illinois.

Equity concerns remain: 64.3% of households with annual incomes of $25,000 or lower have access to broadband internet, compared with 93.5% of those with incomes of $50,000 or lower. In nonmetropolitan areas, 78.1% of households have access, compared with 86.7% of metropolitan households. The good news is that many patients prefer cell phone use for telemedicine, and nearly as many Black and Hispanic Americans own cell phones as White Americans. “That has really democratized access,” said Dr. Alperin.

A key to successful telemedicine appointments is to make sure that the patient is prepared, according to Dr. Alparin. Make sure the patient is in a relatively quiet, well-lit place, and that they have thought about the questions they want to ask. It’s possible to replicate some aspects of a physical appointment with the right conditions. “You can visualize how they move their arms and legs; you can see how they’re breathing. You can gain a lot of information by just watching somebody,” said Dr. Alparin. A physician might also spot clues in the patient’s surroundings. “If a patient is asthmatic and you see cats walking all over the place, or a patient is allergic to gluten and they have loaves of bread everywhere,” he added.

A big concern for telemedicine has been reimbursement. In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created a number of waivers to requirements for billing for telemedicine services, and private insurers followed suit. In August, the agency announced it would make some of those waivers permanent, though others such as removal of restrictions on the site of care, eligible providers, and nonrural areas will likely require an act of Congress to enshrine, CMS administrator Seema Verma told reporters at an August press conference.

SOURCE: 2020 State of Telemedicine Report.

It’s no secret that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted medical practice and led to a surge in telemedicine visits. A new report issued by the health care social network Doximity in September predicts that these changes will be permanent, and that the telehealth industry will more than triple from $29 billion at the end of this year to about $106 billion by 2023.

The report, titled “2020 State of Telemedicine,” follows a similar 2019 publication and captures the changes created by the pandemic. “Obviously, telemedicine has been around for many years, but the pandemic around COVID-19 has really changed the game. Something that had been getting gradual adoption really rocketed to the forefront,” said Peter Alparin, MD, who is an internist in San Francisco and vice president of product at Doximity, in an interview. The report predicts that 20% of medical visits will be conducted through telemedicine by the end of 2020.

Gastroenterology is one of the top specialties to adopt telemedicine, ranking third behind endocrinology and rheumatology, and that should come as no surprise. “Chronic disease patients lend themselves well to telemedicine because they have ongoing relationships with their physicians, so they can be seen more often and it’s more convenient for them. The specialties that take care of patients with those sorts of illnesses were the ones that adopted it the most readily,” said Dr. Alparin.

That’s probably in part because specialists dealing with chronic conditions have been triaging patients with telephone calls for years, making it easier to tell when a patient needs to come in for a physical visit. “It’s a skill you learn, to tell when something is just a little bit different for a patient. It’s really a clinical judgment that has been honed over years of experience,” said Dr. Alparin. The report backs up that idea, as it found that the physician age groups that most often adopted telemedicine were those in their 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Telemedicine is popular with patients once they try it, and it can greatly expand a physician’s reach, according to Dr. Alparin. “If you’re a specialist, you can perhaps see patients in areas where that specialty is underrepresented, whether that’s the inner city or a very rural area,” he said. The most important barrier is high-speed Internet access, which remains a problem in many areas.

Doximity researchers surveyed more than 2,000 U.S. adults to get their opinions on telemedicine, and analyzed telemedicine adoption data from the platform’s own set of telemedicine tools, and compared it to data from the 2019 report. They also reviewed studies looking at disparities in medicine and patient access to telemedicine.

Telemedicine use among patients grew from 14% before the pandemic, to 35% who reported at least one telemedicine visit after COVID-19. A total of 23% said they planned to continue use of telemedicine after the pandemic ends, and 27% said they had become more comfortable using telemedicine. Among patients, 28% said telemedicine provides the same or better benefit as an in-person visit, and this rose to 53% among those with chronic illnesses.

Among physicians, telemedicine adoption rose by 20% between 2015 and 2018, but increased by 38% between 2019 and 2020. The highest percentage of physician telemedicine adopters were in large metro areas and East Coast states, led by Massachusetts, North Carolina, and New Jersey. None of the top 10 adopter states were west of Illinois.

Equity concerns remain: 64.3% of households with annual incomes of $25,000 or lower have access to broadband internet, compared with 93.5% of those with incomes of $50,000 or lower. In nonmetropolitan areas, 78.1% of households have access, compared with 86.7% of metropolitan households. The good news is that many patients prefer cell phone use for telemedicine, and nearly as many Black and Hispanic Americans own cell phones as White Americans. “That has really democratized access,” said Dr. Alperin.

A key to successful telemedicine appointments is to make sure that the patient is prepared, according to Dr. Alparin. Make sure the patient is in a relatively quiet, well-lit place, and that they have thought about the questions they want to ask. It’s possible to replicate some aspects of a physical appointment with the right conditions. “You can visualize how they move their arms and legs; you can see how they’re breathing. You can gain a lot of information by just watching somebody,” said Dr. Alparin. A physician might also spot clues in the patient’s surroundings. “If a patient is asthmatic and you see cats walking all over the place, or a patient is allergic to gluten and they have loaves of bread everywhere,” he added.

A big concern for telemedicine has been reimbursement. In response to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created a number of waivers to requirements for billing for telemedicine services, and private insurers followed suit. In August, the agency announced it would make some of those waivers permanent, though others such as removal of restrictions on the site of care, eligible providers, and nonrural areas will likely require an act of Congress to enshrine, CMS administrator Seema Verma told reporters at an August press conference.

SOURCE: 2020 State of Telemedicine Report.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Trump on Oct. 1 signed a bill to keep the federal government running through December 11. This “continuing resolution” (CR), which was approved by the Senate Wednesday on an 84-10 vote, according to The New York Times, includes provisions to delay repayment by physicians of pandemic-related Medicare loans and to reduce the loans’ interest rate.

In an earlier news release, the American Medical Association reported that Congress and the White House had agreed to include the provisions on Medicare loans in the CR.

Under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments (AAP) program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services advanced money to physicians who were financially impacted by the pandemic. The program, created in March, was suspended in late April.

Physicians who received the Medicare loans were supposed to start paying them back 120 days after they were made. CMS planned to recoup the advances by offsetting them against Medicare claims payments due to physicians. Practices had up to 210 days (7 months) to repay the loans through this process before being asked to repay them directly with interest of 10.25%.

For the practices that received these advances, that meant their Medicare cash flow was scheduled to dry up, starting in August. However, CMS quietly abstained from collecting these payments when they came due, according to Modern Healthcare.
 

New terms

Under the new loan repayment terms in the CR, recoupment of the disbursed funds is postponed until 365 days after the date on which a practice received the money. The balance is due by September 2022.

The amount to be recouped from each claim is reduced from 100% to 25% of the claim for the first 11 months and to 50% of claims withheld for an additional 6 months. If the loan is not repaid in full by then, the provider must pay the balance with interest of 4%.

More than 80% of the $100 billion that CMS loaned to healthcare providers through May 2 went to hospitals, Modern Healthcare calculated. Of the remainder, specialty or multispecialty practices received $3.5 billion, internal medicine specialists got $24 million, family physicians were loaned $15 million, and federally qualified health centers received $20 million.

In the AMA’s news release, AMA President Susan Bailey, MD, who assumed the post in June, called the original loan repayment plan an “economic sword hanging over physician practices.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.

Because of physiological changes with aging and differences in cancer biology, caring for older adults (OAs) with cancer requires careful assessment and planning.

Clark Dumontier, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues sought to define the meaning of the terms “undertreatment” and “overtreatment” for OAs with cancer in a scoping literature review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Though OAs are typically defined as adults aged 65 years and older, in this review, the authors defined OAs as patients aged 60 years and older.

The authors theorized that a scoping review of papers about this patient population could provide clues about limitations in the oncology literature and guidance about patient management and future research. Despite comprising the majority of cancer patients, OAs are underrepresented in clinical trials.
 

About scoping reviews

Scoping reviews are used to identify existing evidence in a field, clarify concepts or definitions in the literature, survey how research on a topic is conducted, and identify knowledge gaps. In addition, scoping reviews summarize available evidence without answering a discrete research question.

Industry standards for scoping reviews have been established by the Johanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. According to these standards, scoping reviews should:

• Establish eligibility criteria with a rationale for each criterion clearly explained
• Search multiple databases in multiple languages
• Include “gray literature,” defined as studies that are unpublished or difficult to locate
• Have several independent reviewers screen titles and abstracts
• Ask multiple independent reviewers to review full text articles
• Present results with charts or diagrams that align with the review’s objective
• Graphically depict the decision process for including/excluding sources
• Identify implications for further research.

In their review, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues fulfilled many of the aforementioned criteria. The team searched three English-language databases for titles and abstracts that included the terms undertreatment and/or overtreatment, and were related to OAs with cancer, inclusive of all types of articles, cancer types, and treatments.

Definitions of undertreatment and overtreatment were extracted, and categories underlying these definitions were derived. Within a random subset of articles, two coauthors independently determined final categories of definitions and independently assigned those categories.
 

Findings and implications

To define OA, Dr. DuMontier and colleagues used a cutoff of 60 years or older. Articles mentioning undertreatment (n = 236), overtreatment (n = 71), or both (n = 51) met criteria for inclusion (n = 256), but only 14 articles (5.5%) explicitly provided formal definitions.

For most of the reviewed articles, the authors judged definitions from the surrounding context. In a random subset of 50 articles, there was a high level of agreement (87.1%; κ = 0.81) between two coauthors in independently assigning categories of definitions.

Undertreatment was applied to therapy that was less than recommended (148 articles; 62.7%) or less than recommended with worse outcomes (88 articles; 37.3%).

Overtreatment most commonly denoted intensive treatment of an OA in whom harms outweighed the benefits of treatment (38 articles; 53.5%) or intensive treatment of a cancer not expected to affect the OA during the patient’s remaining life (33 articles; 46.5%).

Overall, the authors found that undertreatment and overtreatment of OAs with cancer are imprecisely defined concepts. Formal geriatric assessment was recommended in just over half of articles, and only 26.2% recommended formal assessments of age-related vulnerabilities for management. The authors proposed definitions that accounted for both oncologic factors and geriatric domains.
 

Care of individual patients and clinical research

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for OAs with cancer recommend initial consideration of overall life expectancy. If a patient is a candidate for cancer treatment on that basis, the next recommended assessment is that of the patient’s capacity to understand the relevant information, appreciate the underlying values and overall medical situation, reason through decisions, and communicate a choice that is consistent with the patient’s articulated goals.

In the pretreatment evaluation of OAs in whom there are no concerns about tolerance to antineoplastic therapy, NCCN guidelines suggest geriatric screening with standardized tools and, if abnormal, comprehensive geriatric screening. The guidelines recommend considering alternative treatment options if nonmodifiable abnormalities are identified.

Referral to a geriatric clinical specialist, use of the Cancer and Aging Research Group’s Chemo Toxicity Calculator, and calculation of Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients score are specifically suggested if high-risk procedures (such as chemotherapy, radiation, or complex surgery, which most oncologists would consider to be “another day in the office”) are contemplated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for geriatric oncology are similarly detailed and endorse similar evaluations and management.

Employing disease-centric and geriatric domains

Dr. DuMontier and colleagues noted that, for OAs with comorbidity or psychosocial challenges, surrogate survival endpoints are unrelated to quality of life (QOL) outcomes. Nonetheless, QOL is valued by OAs at least as much as survival improvement.

Through no fault of their own, the authors’ conclusion that undertreatment and overtreatment are imperfectly defined concepts has a certain neutrality to it. However, the terms undertreatment and overtreatment are commonly used to signify that inappropriate treatment decisions were made. Therefore, the terms are inherently negative and pejorative.

As with most emotionally charged issues in oncology, it is ideal for professionals in our field to take charge when deficiencies exist. ASCO, NCCN, and the authors of this scoping review have provided a conceptual basis for doing so.

An integrated oncologist-geriatrician approach was shown to be effective in the randomized INTEGERATE trial, showing improved QOL, reduced hospital admissions, and reduced early treatment discontinuation from adverse events (ASCO 2020, Abstract 12011).

Therefore, those clinicians who have not formally, systematically, and routinely supplemented the traditional disease-centric endpoints with patient-centered criteria need to do so.

Similarly, a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open demonstrated that geriatric and surgical comanagement of OAs with cancer was associated with significantly lower 90-day postoperative mortality and receipt of more supportive care services (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and swallow rehabilitation, and nutrition services), in comparison with management from the surgical service only.

These clinical and administrative changes will not only enhance patient management but also facilitate the clinical trials required to clarify optimal treatment intensity. As that occurs, we will be able to apply as much precision to the care of OAs with cancer as we do in other areas of cancer treatment.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Dumontier C et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 1;38(22):2558-2569.