Practice Management

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

ILLUSTRATION © IRYNA INSHYNA/SHUTTERSTOCK

Patient satisfaction questionnaires were developed in the 1980s as part of the movement to better understand the patient’s experience and their perspective of the quality of care. In 1985, the Press Ganey survey—now the most widely used method to assess patient satisfaction—was developed by 2 professors in anthropology and sociology-statistics at Notre Dame. Initially intended for inpatient admissions, the survey was validated based on a few thousand survey results.¹ Given the strong interest in improving patient satisfaction at the time, it became widely adopted and quickly expanded into outpatient encounters and ambulatory surgery settings.

Although other surveys have been developed,² the Press Ganey survey is the most commonly used assessment tool for patient satisfaction metrics in the United States, with approximately 50% of all hospitals and more than 41,000 health care organizations using its services.^3,4 The survey consists of 6 domains related to satisfaction with:

1. the care provider

2. the nurse or assistant

3. personal issues

4. overall assessment

5. access

6. moving through the visit. 

Survey items are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from “very poor” (a score of 1) to “very good” (a score of 5). According to the company, because this format is balanced and parallel (unlike a “poor” to “excellent” format), responses can be quantified and used statistically without violating methodologic assumptions. Also, variability in patients’ responses with this format allows for the identification of opportunities to improve, unlike “yes/no” response formats.¹ There are limitations to this design, however, which can impact data quality,⁵ as we will see.

While the distribution process varies by institution, there is an algorithm laid out by Press Ganey for administering surveys to patients in their preferred language after outpatient visits. Based on recent research into Press Ganey response rates, the typical response rate is estimated to be 16% to 19%.⁶ Although this low response rate is typical of survey data, it inherently introduces the risk of responder bias—meaning results may be skewed by patients who represent the extremes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Adoption of the survey as we move toward value-based care

More recently, patients’ satisfaction with their health care has received increased attention as we move to a patient-centered care model and as health care reimbursement models shift toward value-based care. Current trends in health care policy statements include the importance of raising the standard of care and shifting from a “fee-for-service” to a “pay-for-performance” reimbursement model.^7,8 As a result, hospitals are establishing systems to measure “performance” that are not nationally standardized or extensively studied with objective measures. The changing standard of health care expectations in the United States is a topic of much public debate.⁹ And as expectations and new standards are defined, the impact of implementing novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

Patient satisfaction also has been identified as a driver for hospital finances through loyalty, described as the “likelihood to return to that system for future medical services.”^10,11 This measure has contributed to policy changes that reinforce prioritization of patient satisfaction. For example, the Affordable Care Act tied Medicare reimbursement and patient satisfaction together in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This program uses measures of clinical processes, efficiency, outcomes, and patient experiences to calculate a total score that results in hospital reimbursement and incentives,¹² which creates a direct pathway from patient experience to reimbursement—underscoring hospitals’ desire for ongoing assessment of patient satisfaction.

Continue to: Gender, race, and age bias...

Gender, race, and age bias

Although the rationale behind gathering patient input is important, recent data suggest that patient satisfaction surveys are subject to inherent biases.^6,13,14 These biases tend to negatively impact women and non-White physicians, adding to the systemic discrimination against women and physicians of color that already exists in health care.

In a single-site retrospective study performed in 2018 by Rogo-Gupta et al, female gynecologists were found to be 47% less likely to receive top patient satisfaction scores than their male counterparts owing to their gender alone, suggesting that gender bias may impact the results of patient satisfaction questionnaires.¹³ The authors encouraged that the results of patient satisfaction surveys be interpreted with great caution until the impact on female physicians is better understood.

A multi-center study by the same group (Rogo-Gupta et al) assessed the same construct across 5 different geographically diverse institutions.¹⁵ This study confirmed that female gynecologists were less likely to receive a top satisfaction score from their patients (19% lower odds when compared with male gynecologists). They also studied the effects of other patient demographics, including age, race/ethnicity, and race concordance. Older patients (aged ≥63 years) had an over-3-fold increase in odds of providing a top satisfaction score than younger patients. Additionally, Asian physicians had significantly lower odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with White physicians, while Asian patients had significantly lower odds of providing a top satisfaction score when compared with White patients. Lastly, in most cases, when underrepresented-in-medicine patients saw an underrepresented-in-medicine physician (race concordance), there was a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score. Asian race concordance, however, actually resulted in a lower likelihood of receiving a top satisfaction score.¹⁵

Literature from other specialties supports these findings. These results are consistent with emerging data from other medical specialties that also suggest that Press Ganey survey data are subject to inherent biases. For example, data from emergency medicine literature have shown discrepancies between patient satisfaction for providers at tertiary inner-city institutions versus those in affluent suburban populations,¹⁶ and that worse mortality is actually correlated with better patient satisfaction scores, and vice versa.¹⁷

Another study by Sotto-Santiago in 2019 assessed patient satisfaction scores in multiple specialties at a single institution where quality-related financial incentives were offered based on this metric. They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction scores between underrepresented and White physicians, which suggests a potential bias among patients and institutional practices—ultimately leading to pay inequities through differences in financial incentives.¹⁸

Percentile differences reveal small gaps in satisfaction ratings

When examining the difference between raw Press Ganey patient satisfaction data and the percentiles associated with these scores, an interesting finding arises. Looking at the 2023 multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al, the difference in the top raw scores between male and female gynecologists appears to be small (3.3%).¹⁵ However, in 2020, the difference in top scores separating the top (75th) and bottom (25th) percentile quartiles of physicians was also small, at only 6.9%.

Considering the percentiles, if a provider who scores in the 25th percentile is compared with a colleague who scores in the 75th percentile, they may think the reported satisfaction score differences were quite large. This may potentially invoke feelings of decreased self-worth, negatively impact their professional identity or overall well-being, and they may seek (or be told to seek) improvement opportunities. Now imagine the provider in question realizes the difference between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is actually only 6.9%. This information may completely change how the results are interpreted and acted upon by administrators. This is further changed with the understanding that 3.3% of the difference may be due to gender alone, narrowing the gap even further. Providers would become understandably frustrated if measures of success such as reimbursement, financial bonus or incentives, promotion, or advancement are linked to these results. It violates the value of fairness and does not offer an equitable starting point.

Evolution of the data distribution. Another consideration, as noted by Robert C. Lloyd, PhD, one of the statisticians who helped develop the percentile statistical analysis mapping in 1985, is that it was based on a classic bell-shaped distribution of patient satisfaction survey scores.¹⁹ Because hospitals, medical groups, and physicians have been working these past 20 years to achieve higher Press Ganey scores, the data no longer have a bell-shaped distribution. Rather, there are significant clusters of raw scores at the high end with a very narrow response range. When these data are mapped to the percentile spectrum, they are highly inaccurate.¹⁹

Impact of sample size. According to Press Ganey, a minimum of 30 survey responses collected over the designated time period is necessary to draw meaningful conclusions of the data for a specific individual, program, or hospital. Despite this requirement to achieve statistical significance, Sullivan and DeLucia found that the firm often provides comparative data about hospital departments and individual physicians based on a smaller sample size that may create an unacceptably large margin of error.²⁰ Sullivan, for example, said his department may only have 8 to 10 Press Ganey survey responses per month and yet still receives monthly reports from the company analyzing the data. Because of the small sample size, 1 month his department ranked in the 1st percentile and 2 months later it ranked in the 99th percentile.²⁰

The effect of a high ceiling rate. A psychometrics report for the Press Ganey survey is available from the vendor that provides vague assessments of reliability and validity based on 2,762 surveys from 12 practices across 10 states. This report describes a 12-question version of the survey with “no problems encountered” with missingness and response variability. The report further states that the Press Ganey survey demonstrates construct, convergent, divergent, and predictive validities, and high reliability; however, these data are not made available.¹

In response to this report, Presson et al analyzed more than 34,000 surveys from one institution to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Press Ganey survey.21 Overall, the survey demonstrated suitable psychometric properties for most metrics. However, Presson et al noted a significantly high ceiling rate of 29.3% for the total score, which ranged from 55.4% to 84.1% across items.²¹ (Ceiling rates are considered substantial if they occur more than 20% of the time.) Ultimately, a high ceiling rate reduces the power to discriminate between patients who have high satisfaction (everyone is “happy”) with those who are just slightly less than happy, but not dissatisfied. This data quality metric can impact the reliability and validity of a survey—and substantial ceiling rates can notably impact percentile rankings of scores within an institution, offering a possible explanation for the small percentage change between the top and bottom percentiles.

Continue to: Other issues with surveys...

Other issues with surveys

In addition to the limitations associated with percentile groupings, survey data are always subject to nonresponse bias, and small sample size can lead to nonsignificant results. Skewed responses also can make it difficult to identify true outlying providers who may need remediation or may be offering a superior patient experience. Satisfaction surveys also lack an assessment of objective data and instead assess how patients perceive and feel, which introduces subjectivity to the results.

Additionally, focusing on improving patient experience ratings can incentivize unnecessary or inappropriate care (ie, overprescribing of narcotics, prescribing antibiotics when not indicated, or ordering testing that may not change management). Some physicians even state that they are not getting the type of feedback that they are asking for and that the survey is not asking the right questions to elicit patient input that is meaningful to their practice. Lastly, the incorporation of trainees and advanced practice providers in the patient care experience leads to the assessment of an alternative provider being included in the ultimate score and may not be representative of that physician.

Patients’ perception and survey results. In some circumstances, the patient’s understanding of their medical situation may affect their responses. Some may argue that patients may mistake a physician’s confidence for competence, when in reality these two entities are mutually exclusive. In a randomized controlled trial, researchers from Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University Medical Center surveyed inner-city women with newly diagnosed and surgically treated early-stage breast cancer for their perceived quality of care and the process of getting care, including referrals, test results, and treatments. They compared the responses with patient records to determine the actual quality of care. Of the 374 women who received treatment for early-stage breast cancer, 55% said they received “excellent care,” but most—88%—actually got care that was in line with the best current treatment guidelines. Interestingly, the study found African American women were less likely to report excellent care than White or Hispanic women, less likely to trust their doctor, and more likely to say they experienced bias during the process. However, there was no difference in actual quality of care received in any group.²²

You can’t improve what you can’t control. Ultimately, while many providers think patient satisfaction survey results may help inform some aspects of their practice, they cannot improve what they cannot control. For example, the multicenter study by Rogo-Gupta et al found that older patients (≥63 years) have more than a 3-fold increase in odds of giving a top satisfaction score than younger patients (≤33 years), independent of other aspects of the care experience.15 Additionally, they found that older physicians (≥56 years) had a significant increase in odds of receiving a top satisfaction score when compared with physicians who were younger than 55 years old.¹⁵ Given that physicians clearly cannot control their own age or the age of their patients, the negative impacts of these biases need to be addressed and remedied at a systems level.

Why might these biases exist?

While we cannot completely understand all of the possible explanations for these biases, it is important to emphasize the long-standing prejudice and discrimination against women and people of color in our society and how this has impacted our behavior. While strides have been made, there clearly still seems to be a difference between what we say and how our biases impact our behavior. Women are still tougher on women in professional evaluations in other fields as well²³; it is not unique to medicine. While workplace improvements are slowly changing, women still face inequities. The more research we publish to describe it, the more we hope the conversation continues, allowing us to reduce the impact of bias on our sense of self-worth and identity related to our careers, narrow the pay gap, and see women advance at the same rate as male counterparts. Considerable transformation is crucial to prevent further workforce attrition.

With regard to the lower scores provided by Asian patients, studies suggest that cultural response bias, rather than true differences in quality of care, may account for these discrepancies. Previous literature has found that Asian patients are more likely to select midpoints, rather than extremes, when completing Likert-type studies²⁴ and are not more likely to change medical providers than other race/ethnicities, indicating that lower ratings may not necessarily imply greater dissatisfaction with care.²⁵

Far-reaching effects on finances, income, well-being, job satisfaction, etc.

Depending on how the results are distributed and used, the effects of patient satisfaction surveys can extend well beyond the original intentions. At some institutions, income for physicians is directly tied to their Press Ganey satisfaction scores, which could have profound implications for female and Asian physicians,^13,15 who would be paid less—resulting in a wider pay gap than already exists.¹⁸

When negative and not constructive, patient evaluations can contribute to physician burnout and a loss of productive members of the workforce.²⁶ This is especially important in obstetrics and gynecology, where physicians are most likely to experience burnout due to multiple factors such as high-risk medical conditions, pressures of the electronic medical record (EMR), the medicolegal environment, and difficulty balancing patient expectations for autonomy with professional judgement.²⁷ Burnout also disproportionately affects women and younger physicians, which is especially concerning given that, in 2017, approximately one-third of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists were women, while that same year more than 80% of trainees matching into the field were women.²⁸ In one survey sent to members of a prominent medical society, 20% of the medical professionals who responded said they have had their employment threatened by low patient satisfaction scores, 78% reported that patient satisfaction surveys moderately or severely affected their job satisfaction, and 28% stated they had considered quitting their job or leaving the medical profession.²⁹Another related effect is the association between malpractice proceedings and a lack of satisfaction with perceived quality of physician-patient communication.³⁰ This may be an important determinant of malpractice lawsuits, and ensuring high patient satisfaction may be a form of defensive medicine.

Continue to: Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies...

Controlling the narrative for the future: Proposed strategies

The rapid, widespread adoption of the Press Ganey survey across specialties, clinical care settings, and geographic areas may have been largely due to the ease and operational benefits for hospitals rather than after rigorous study and validation. For example, repeated use of a specific measurement tool may facilitate comparison across areas within a hospital but also across institutions, which can help assess performance at a national level. Hospitals also may have a financial incentive to work with a single third-party or vendor instead of using multiple options across multiple vendors. However, the impact of adoption of novel measures of performance should be evaluated prior to widespread adoption and utilization.

A similar example of an emergence of a technological advancement that has changed the field of medicine and how we provide care is the EMR. Epic is now the most commonly used medical record system and holds the market share of the industry, covering 78% of patients in the United States.³¹ While there are certainly many potential benefits of a common EMR, such as ease of information sharing and standardization of formatting, opportunities are identified in real time and require product adjustment. For example, modifications have been made to accurately represent gender outside of the previously used dichotomous options. Diagnoses such as cervical cancer screening can now be used even if the patient gender is listed as male.

Similarly, the Press Ganey and other patient satisfaction questionnaires should be evaluated and modified to address existing societal biases. The World Health Organization estimates that it will take 300 years to fix gender inequality,³² but we have an opportunity now to control the narrative and improve patient feedback.

Future research avenues

Ultimately, there is a need to further explore currently available methods of evaluating clinical encounters to better understand the inherent biases and limitations. We hope this review will encourage other physicians to examine their specialties and hospitals and require similar analyses from vendors of such satisfaction rating products prior to using them. At the very least, health systems should be willing to partner with vendors and physicians on an ongoing basis to better understand the biases involved in these survey results and make modifications as needed. Patients also obtain information from and contribute to self-reported, publicly available websites; therefore, additional exploration into a nationalized standard for assessing patient satisfaction also may serve as an opportunity to standardize the information patients evaluate.³³ Further assessment of the potential financial and emotional impact of using the currently available patient-reported surveys on female physicians, Asian physicians, young physicians, and physicians who see young patients is needed. It is time to put pressure on a broken patient satisfaction system and improve on a national level to avoid undue negative consequences on our physicians. Use of patient satisfaction survey data should be limited until we all understand and account for the biases that are evident. ●

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

It’s been just over 1 month since UnitedHealthcare (UHC) launched its advance notification program requiring providers to record nonscreening colonoscopy and other gastroenterology procedures to be eligible for its 2024 Gold Card program.

The program, which will begin next year, may eliminate prior authorization requirements for providers who successfully complete the advance notification program this year. However, there is no guarantee that providers who complete the advance notification program will be enrolled in the Gold Card program, which means they would have to seek prior authorization for nonscreening procedures, according to the American Gastroenterological Association.

While UHC has provided some information about how advance notification works, there are many unanswered questions, said Barbara H. Jung, MD,AGAF, AGA president.

AGA

“UnitedHealthcare’s haphazard approach to rolling out a policy that will ultimately control patient access to critical, often lifesaving medical procedures are the opposite of what should be our common goal of expeditious access to essential care,” she said in a written statement.

The advance notification program was announced on June 1 when UHC said it was dropping its controversial prior authorization program, which was due to go into effect that day.

AGA is concerned that UHC’s advance notification program is merely a delay tactic because prior authorization may be required next year for providers who are not accepted into the Gold Card program. Providers who are not accepted into the program may face delays in administering procedures due to the need for prior authorizations. Thousands of endoscopies and colonoscopies could potentially be disrupted in the first month alone due to canceled procedures because of new prior authorization requirements, they said.

UHC has been trying to rein in health care costs by first considering prior authorizations for most gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, but ultimately adopting advance notification. Providers, UHC has said, don’t always follow evidence-based medicine treatment recommendations or they overutilize procedures. Their goal, according to a summary document it issued outlining changes to advance notification and prior authorization requirements, is “better care, improved health outcomes, and lower costs.”

“Clinical studies demonstrate overutilization of these procedures and lack of adherence to specialty society–endorsed guidelines and recommendations. Up to one-third of upper GI procedures and almost half of nonscreening colonoscopies performed for common clinical conditions are not consistent with clinical guidelines,” UHC stated in an FAQ. “A UHC review of upper endoscopy and lower endoscopy procedures performed in 2022 revealed two- to fivefold practice-level variation in the use of both procedure types, even after adjusting for member characteristics including age and comorbidities.”

However, according to a statement from the AGA, it has not seen utilization data specific to UHC: “It is clear that UHC does not currently have any data indicating significant overutilization of critical colonoscopy and endoscopy procedures and therefore no justification to impose burdensome barriers like prior authorization.” AGA also pointed to research showing there is an unmet need for colonoscopies in the United States, which suggests there is an underutilization of this crucial procedure.

The advance notification policy comes despite immense pressure from physicians, patients, lawmakers, and regulators to crack down on prior authorization policies. “AGA has expressed its willingness to work collaboratively with UnitedHealthcare to address any concerns and educate physicians, but communication and transparency with the insurer are nearly nonexistent. Instead, the GI community is confronted with a nebulous concept called advance notification, which is not conducive to seamless patient care. Ultimately, it appears advance notification will form the basis of prior authorization, which we know can delay, disrupt, and deny timely care,” Dr. Jung said.
 

How advance notification works

Beginning June 1, providers have been asked to provide advance notification for nonscreening GI endoscopy procedures that include: esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy. The notification can be made by phone (866-889-8054) or through a UHC online portal at UHCprovider.com.

The AGA has said that some GI practices have found the portal to be confusing and it lacks a standard software application raising concerns for high error rates.

Advance notification applies to patients who have UHC commercial plans, including UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealthcare Plan of the River Valley, Neighborhood Health Partnership, UnitedHealthcare Level Funded, and UnitedHealthcare Oxford Health Plans in all states, except Rhode Island, Kentucky, and New Mexico.

Providers who opt out of participating in advance notification will not be eligible to participate in the Gold Card program in 2024. The program will essentially allow providers to order most GI endoscopy procedures, except for screening colonoscopy, without prior authorization. However, UHC has not released any information about how it will implement its planned Gold Card prior authorization program or how many providers will be accepted into the program.

UHC has assured providers it will not issue medical necessity denials through this process, but it may ask providers to participate in a “comprehensive peer-to-peer discussion with a board-certified gastroenterologist around clinical guidelines.”

The fear for practices is that advance notification will be an onerous process adding burdensome paperwork that practices are not equipped to manage. UHC is the largest health insurer in the country representing 46% of the total market.

Lawrence Kim, MD, AGAF, vice president of AGA and a gastroenterologist practicing in Denver said that each physician in his practice does over 1,000 procedures annually and 25% of their patients carry UHC.

“We are currently completing 30-40 notifications a day, requiring two staff members to comply with this program. UHC is not asking for any clinical information, just procedure and diagnosis codes, and in some cases site of service. Therefore, the advance notification program as it stands will not provide UHC with any additional information beyond what they already have through claims data. This highlights the strain these requirements are putting on providers and practices for repetitive data,” he said.

For more details about UHC’s advance notification program, UHC has prepared this FAQ. To learn more about AGA’s advocacy, visit www.gastro.org/UHC.

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

The American Medical Association is considering whether to study alternatives to the current residency matching program in an effort to improve residents’ compensation and other job-related issues. A recent call-to-action resolution by the AMA’s House of Delegates is the latest in a long string of debates about whether to change the annual process that matches future doctors with compatible residency programs.

AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section introduced the resolution in March, and the delegates approved it earlier in June at AMA’s annual meeting. The resolution states that the match process of the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) “poses significant anticompetition concerns.” Those include preventing residents from negotiating for higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions, according to the approved resolution.

The full AMA board still has to consider the resolution and hasn’t set a date for that review, though it’s expected to be in the next few months, according to Jennifer Sellers, AMA’s public information officer. She said in an interview that the organization declined to comment, wanting to hold off until the board decides how to proceed.

The NRMP, which oversees the matching process, told this news organization that the AMA doesn’t play a role in the Match.

The organization doesn’t believe studying alternative placement methods benefits applicants and residents, and returning to a pre-Match environment, would harm applicants and programs, according to Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO.

“The NRMP has no role in determining, publishing, or setting resident salaries nor does the NRMP have a role in the contracting or employment of residents, and it never has.”

Dr. Lamb said changing the Match would “subject applicants to undue pressure and coercion to accept an offer of training. This will exacerbate disparities in candidate selection already evident in medical education and potentially result in salary reductions in more competitive specialties and in more desirable geographic locations.”

The latest push to reform the match process dates back two decades to a 2002 class action antitrust lawsuit by residents and doctors against the NRMP and other organizations involved in the Match.

The residents argued at that time that by restraining competition among teaching hospitals, the matching system allowed hospitals to keep residents’ wages artificially low. The defendants, which included large teaching hospitals, successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption to the antitrust laws, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

The AMA was one of the defendants, so if it moves forward to review the match process, it likely would pit the organization against the NRMP.

Sherman Marek, the attorney who represented the residents, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the latest AMA resolution. “Maybe the AMA leadership has come around to the idea that it’s better for young physicians to not have the match in place,” he says. “I would applaud that sort of evolution.”

Tyler Ramsey, DO, an internal medicine resident and AMA member, said he believes the group’s current president, Jesse Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, empathizes with doctors in training. “I think he understands [our] views and is more progressive.”

The NRMP also has considered ways to improve the match process to make it easier and more equitable for applicants. In its latest effort, the organization is studying whether programs should certify their rank order list in advance of applicants. This change would give applicants more flexibility to visit residency locations before the programs consider changing their rankings, Dr. Lamb explained. The NRMP also is mulling the possibilities of a two-phase match after deciding in 2022 not to move forward with a previous version of the proposal.

The recent House of Delegates resolution states that “residents are using other means to obtain fair wages, safe working conditions, and other benefits that are unable to be negotiated within the current system.”

Dr. Ramsey, who trains in North Carolina, said the “other means” may include negotiating through a union. “The AMA realizes that there is a problem and that people are unionizing,” he said. “Obviously, as an organization, we’re not doing something correctly, to the point where people are feeling the need to get their rights a different way.”

The Committee of Interns and Residents, which represents 30,000 members, reported a rise in medical trainee unions across the country in 2022.

Not everyone believes that ditching the Match would benefit applicants and residents. Sam Payabvash, MD, assistant professor of radiology at Yale, New Haven, Conn., School of Medicine, tweeted about the resolution as part of a larger Twitter discussion that alternatives are likely to be “more onerous and expensive for applicants.”

An advantage of the match program, Dr. Lamb argued, is that it “improves the reach of applicants into medically underserved communities through widespread program participation.”

Dr. Ramsey agreed that the match program has benefits and drawbacks, but he believes it favors programs over residents. “It comes as no surprise that numerous residents suffer from depression and our suicide rates are the highest amongst all professions due to the lack of control or negotiation of fair salary and working conditions. Overall, the way things are now, residents just do not have a lot of rights.”

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

Pediatric nephrologist Bryan Carmody, MD, recalls working alongside an extremely experienced neonatologist during his residency. She had managed a neonatal intensive care unit in her home country of Lithuania, but because she wanted to practice in the United States, it took years of repeat training before she was eligible for a medical license.

“She was very accomplished, and she was wonderful to have as a coresident at the time,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview.

The neonatologist now practices at a U.S. academic medical center, but to obtain that position, she had to complete 3 years of pediatric residency and 3 years of fellowship in the United States, Dr. Carmody said.

Such training for international medical graduates (IMGs) is a routine part of obtaining a U.S. medical license, but a new Tennessee law bypasses these requirements and creates a quicker pathway for IMGs to secure medical licenses in the United States.

The American Medical Association took similar measures at its recent annual meeting, making it easier for IMGs to gain licensure. Because the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the process by which some IMGs had their licenses verified, the AMA is now encouraging state licensing boards and other credentialing institutions to accept certification from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates as verification, rather than requiring documents directly from international medical schools.

When it comes to Tennessee’s new law, signed by Gov. Bill Lee in April, experienced IMGs who have received medical training abroad can skip U.S. residency requirements and obtain a temporary license to practice medicine in Tennessee if they meet certain qualifications.

The international doctors must demonstrate competency, as determined by the state medical board. In addition, they must have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in the graduate’s licensing country or otherwise have practiced as a medical professional in which they performed the duties of a physician for at least 3 of the past 5 years outside the United States, according to the new law.

To be approved, IMGs must also have received an employment offer from a Tennessee health care provider that has a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

If physicians remain in good standing for 2 years, the board will grant them a full and unrestricted license to practice in Tennessee.

“The new legislation opens up a lot of doors for international medical graduates and is also a lifeline for a lot of underserved areas in Tennessee,” said Asim Ansari, MD, a Canadian who attended medical school in the Caribbean and is an advocate for IMGs.

Dr. Ansari is participating in a child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, until he can apply for the sixth time to a residency program. “This could possibly be a model that other states may want to implement in a few years.”
 

What’s behind the law?

A predicted physician shortage in Tennessee drove the legislation, said Rep. Sabi “Doc” Kumar, MD, vice chair for the Tennessee House Health Committee and a cosponsor of the legislation. Legislators hope the law will mitigate that shortage and boost the number of physicians practicing in underserved areas of the state.

“Considering that one in four physicians in the U.S. are international medical gradates, it was important for us to be able to attract those physicians to Tennessee,” he said.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners will develop administrative rules for the law, which may take up to a year, Rep. Kumar said. He expects the program to be available to IMGs beginning in mid-2024.

Upon completion of the program, IMGs will be able to practice general medicine in Tennessee, not a specialty. Requirements for specialty certification would have to be met through the specialties’ respective boards.

Dr. Carmody, who blogs about medical education, including the new legislation, said in an interview the law will greatly benefit experienced IMGs, who often are bypassed as residency candidates because they graduated years ago. Hospitals also win because they can fill positions that otherwise might sit vacant, he said.

Family physician Sahil Bawa, MD, an IMG from India who recently matched into his specialty, said the Tennessee legislation will help fellow IMGs find U.S. medical jobs.

“It’s very difficult for IMGs to get into residency in the U.S.,” he said. “I’ve seen people with medical degrees from other countries drive Uber or do odd jobs to sustain themselves here. I’ve known a few people who have left and gone back to their home country because they were not accepted into a residency.”
 

Who benefits most?

Dr. Bawa noted that the legislation would not have helped him, as he needed a visa to practice in the United States and the law does not include the sponsoring of visas. The legislation requires IMGs to show evidence of citizenship or evidence that they are legally entitled to live or work in the United States.

U.S. citizen IMGs who haven’t completed residency or who practiced in another country also are left out of the law, Dr. Carmody said.

“This law is designed to take the most accomplished cream of the crop international medical graduates with the most experience and the most sophisticated skill set and send them to Tennessee. I think that’s the intent,” he said. “But many international medical graduates are U.S. citizens who don’t have the opportunity to practice in countries other than United States or do residencies. A lot of these people are sitting on the sidelines, unable to secure residency positions. I’m sure they would be desperate for a program like this.”
 

Questions remain

“Just because the doctor can get a [temporary] license without the training doesn’t mean employers are going to be interested in sponsoring those doctors,” said Adam Cohen, an immigration attorney who practices in Memphis. “What is the inclination of these employers to hire these physicians who have undergone training outside the U.S.? And will there be skepticism on the part of employers about the competence of these doctors?”

“Hospital systems will be able to hire experienced practitioners for a very low cost,” Dr. Ansari said. “So now you have these additional bodies who can do the work of a physician, but you don’t have to pay them as much as a physician for 2 years. And because some are desperate to work, they will take lower pay as long as they have a pathway to full licensure in Tennessee. What are the protections for these physicians? Who will cover their insurance? Who will be responsible for them, the attendees? And will the attendees be willing to put their license on the line for them?”

In addition, Dr. Carmody questions what, if anything, will encourage IMGs to work in underserved areas in Tennessee after their 2 years are up and whether there will be any incentives to guide them. He wonders, too, whether the physicians will be stuck practicing in Tennessee following completion of the program.

“Will these physicians only be able to work in Tennessee?” he asked. “I think that’s probably going to be the case, because they’ll be licensed in Tennessee, but to go to another state, they would be missing the required residency training. So it might be these folks are stuck in Tennessee unless other states develop reciprocal arrangements.”

Other states would have to decide whether to recognize the Tennessee license acquired through this pathway, Rep. Kumar said.

He explained that the sponsoring sites would be responsible for providing work-hour restrictions and liability protections. There are currently no incentives in the legislation for IMGs to practice in rural, underserved areas, but the hospitals and communities there generally offer incentives when recruiting, Rep. Kumar said.

“The law definitely has the potential to be helpful,” Mr. Cohen said, “because there’s an ability to place providers in the state without having to go through the bottleneck of limited residency slots. If other states see a positive effect on Tennessee or are exploring ways to alleviate their own shortages, it’s possible [they] might follow suit.”

Rep. Kumar agreed that other states will be watching Tennessee to weigh the law’s success.

“I think the law will have to prove itself and show that Tennessee has benefited from it and that the results have been good,” he said. “We are providing a pioneering way for attracting medical graduates and making it easier for them to obtain a license. I would think other states would want to do that.”

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

Pediatric nephrologist Bryan Carmody, MD, recalls working alongside an extremely experienced neonatologist during his residency. She had managed a neonatal intensive care unit in her home country of Lithuania, but because she wanted to practice in the United States, it took years of repeat training before she was eligible for a medical license.

“She was very accomplished, and she was wonderful to have as a coresident at the time,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview.

The neonatologist now practices at a U.S. academic medical center, but to obtain that position, she had to complete 3 years of pediatric residency and 3 years of fellowship in the United States, Dr. Carmody said.

Such training for international medical graduates (IMGs) is a routine part of obtaining a U.S. medical license, but a new Tennessee law bypasses these requirements and creates a quicker pathway for IMGs to secure medical licenses in the United States.

The American Medical Association took similar measures at its recent annual meeting, making it easier for IMGs to gain licensure. Because the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the process by which some IMGs had their licenses verified, the AMA is now encouraging state licensing boards and other credentialing institutions to accept certification from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates as verification, rather than requiring documents directly from international medical schools.

When it comes to Tennessee’s new law, signed by Gov. Bill Lee in April, experienced IMGs who have received medical training abroad can skip U.S. residency requirements and obtain a temporary license to practice medicine in Tennessee if they meet certain qualifications.

The international doctors must demonstrate competency, as determined by the state medical board. In addition, they must have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in the graduate’s licensing country or otherwise have practiced as a medical professional in which they performed the duties of a physician for at least 3 of the past 5 years outside the United States, according to the new law.

To be approved, IMGs must also have received an employment offer from a Tennessee health care provider that has a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

If physicians remain in good standing for 2 years, the board will grant them a full and unrestricted license to practice in Tennessee.

“The new legislation opens up a lot of doors for international medical graduates and is also a lifeline for a lot of underserved areas in Tennessee,” said Asim Ansari, MD, a Canadian who attended medical school in the Caribbean and is an advocate for IMGs.

Dr. Ansari is participating in a child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, until he can apply for the sixth time to a residency program. “This could possibly be a model that other states may want to implement in a few years.”
 

What’s behind the law?

A predicted physician shortage in Tennessee drove the legislation, said Rep. Sabi “Doc” Kumar, MD, vice chair for the Tennessee House Health Committee and a cosponsor of the legislation. Legislators hope the law will mitigate that shortage and boost the number of physicians practicing in underserved areas of the state.

“Considering that one in four physicians in the U.S. are international medical gradates, it was important for us to be able to attract those physicians to Tennessee,” he said.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners will develop administrative rules for the law, which may take up to a year, Rep. Kumar said. He expects the program to be available to IMGs beginning in mid-2024.

Upon completion of the program, IMGs will be able to practice general medicine in Tennessee, not a specialty. Requirements for specialty certification would have to be met through the specialties’ respective boards.

Dr. Carmody, who blogs about medical education, including the new legislation, said in an interview the law will greatly benefit experienced IMGs, who often are bypassed as residency candidates because they graduated years ago. Hospitals also win because they can fill positions that otherwise might sit vacant, he said.

Family physician Sahil Bawa, MD, an IMG from India who recently matched into his specialty, said the Tennessee legislation will help fellow IMGs find U.S. medical jobs.

“It’s very difficult for IMGs to get into residency in the U.S.,” he said. “I’ve seen people with medical degrees from other countries drive Uber or do odd jobs to sustain themselves here. I’ve known a few people who have left and gone back to their home country because they were not accepted into a residency.”
 

Who benefits most?

Dr. Bawa noted that the legislation would not have helped him, as he needed a visa to practice in the United States and the law does not include the sponsoring of visas. The legislation requires IMGs to show evidence of citizenship or evidence that they are legally entitled to live or work in the United States.

U.S. citizen IMGs who haven’t completed residency or who practiced in another country also are left out of the law, Dr. Carmody said.

“This law is designed to take the most accomplished cream of the crop international medical graduates with the most experience and the most sophisticated skill set and send them to Tennessee. I think that’s the intent,” he said. “But many international medical graduates are U.S. citizens who don’t have the opportunity to practice in countries other than United States or do residencies. A lot of these people are sitting on the sidelines, unable to secure residency positions. I’m sure they would be desperate for a program like this.”
 

Questions remain

“Just because the doctor can get a [temporary] license without the training doesn’t mean employers are going to be interested in sponsoring those doctors,” said Adam Cohen, an immigration attorney who practices in Memphis. “What is the inclination of these employers to hire these physicians who have undergone training outside the U.S.? And will there be skepticism on the part of employers about the competence of these doctors?”

“Hospital systems will be able to hire experienced practitioners for a very low cost,” Dr. Ansari said. “So now you have these additional bodies who can do the work of a physician, but you don’t have to pay them as much as a physician for 2 years. And because some are desperate to work, they will take lower pay as long as they have a pathway to full licensure in Tennessee. What are the protections for these physicians? Who will cover their insurance? Who will be responsible for them, the attendees? And will the attendees be willing to put their license on the line for them?”

In addition, Dr. Carmody questions what, if anything, will encourage IMGs to work in underserved areas in Tennessee after their 2 years are up and whether there will be any incentives to guide them. He wonders, too, whether the physicians will be stuck practicing in Tennessee following completion of the program.

“Will these physicians only be able to work in Tennessee?” he asked. “I think that’s probably going to be the case, because they’ll be licensed in Tennessee, but to go to another state, they would be missing the required residency training. So it might be these folks are stuck in Tennessee unless other states develop reciprocal arrangements.”

Other states would have to decide whether to recognize the Tennessee license acquired through this pathway, Rep. Kumar said.

He explained that the sponsoring sites would be responsible for providing work-hour restrictions and liability protections. There are currently no incentives in the legislation for IMGs to practice in rural, underserved areas, but the hospitals and communities there generally offer incentives when recruiting, Rep. Kumar said.

“The law definitely has the potential to be helpful,” Mr. Cohen said, “because there’s an ability to place providers in the state without having to go through the bottleneck of limited residency slots. If other states see a positive effect on Tennessee or are exploring ways to alleviate their own shortages, it’s possible [they] might follow suit.”

Rep. Kumar agreed that other states will be watching Tennessee to weigh the law’s success.

“I think the law will have to prove itself and show that Tennessee has benefited from it and that the results have been good,” he said. “We are providing a pioneering way for attracting medical graduates and making it easier for them to obtain a license. I would think other states would want to do that.”

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

Pediatric nephrologist Bryan Carmody, MD, recalls working alongside an extremely experienced neonatologist during his residency. She had managed a neonatal intensive care unit in her home country of Lithuania, but because she wanted to practice in the United States, it took years of repeat training before she was eligible for a medical license.

“She was very accomplished, and she was wonderful to have as a coresident at the time,” Dr. Carmody said in an interview.

The neonatologist now practices at a U.S. academic medical center, but to obtain that position, she had to complete 3 years of pediatric residency and 3 years of fellowship in the United States, Dr. Carmody said.

Such training for international medical graduates (IMGs) is a routine part of obtaining a U.S. medical license, but a new Tennessee law bypasses these requirements and creates a quicker pathway for IMGs to secure medical licenses in the United States.

The American Medical Association took similar measures at its recent annual meeting, making it easier for IMGs to gain licensure. Because the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the process by which some IMGs had their licenses verified, the AMA is now encouraging state licensing boards and other credentialing institutions to accept certification from the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates as verification, rather than requiring documents directly from international medical schools.

When it comes to Tennessee’s new law, signed by Gov. Bill Lee in April, experienced IMGs who have received medical training abroad can skip U.S. residency requirements and obtain a temporary license to practice medicine in Tennessee if they meet certain qualifications.

The international doctors must demonstrate competency, as determined by the state medical board. In addition, they must have completed a 3-year postgraduate training program in the graduate’s licensing country or otherwise have practiced as a medical professional in which they performed the duties of a physician for at least 3 of the past 5 years outside the United States, according to the new law.

To be approved, IMGs must also have received an employment offer from a Tennessee health care provider that has a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

If physicians remain in good standing for 2 years, the board will grant them a full and unrestricted license to practice in Tennessee.

“The new legislation opens up a lot of doors for international medical graduates and is also a lifeline for a lot of underserved areas in Tennessee,” said Asim Ansari, MD, a Canadian who attended medical school in the Caribbean and is an advocate for IMGs.

Dr. Ansari is participating in a child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, until he can apply for the sixth time to a residency program. “This could possibly be a model that other states may want to implement in a few years.”
 

What’s behind the law?

A predicted physician shortage in Tennessee drove the legislation, said Rep. Sabi “Doc” Kumar, MD, vice chair for the Tennessee House Health Committee and a cosponsor of the legislation. Legislators hope the law will mitigate that shortage and boost the number of physicians practicing in underserved areas of the state.

“Considering that one in four physicians in the U.S. are international medical gradates, it was important for us to be able to attract those physicians to Tennessee,” he said.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners will develop administrative rules for the law, which may take up to a year, Rep. Kumar said. He expects the program to be available to IMGs beginning in mid-2024.

Upon completion of the program, IMGs will be able to practice general medicine in Tennessee, not a specialty. Requirements for specialty certification would have to be met through the specialties’ respective boards.

Dr. Carmody, who blogs about medical education, including the new legislation, said in an interview the law will greatly benefit experienced IMGs, who often are bypassed as residency candidates because they graduated years ago. Hospitals also win because they can fill positions that otherwise might sit vacant, he said.

Family physician Sahil Bawa, MD, an IMG from India who recently matched into his specialty, said the Tennessee legislation will help fellow IMGs find U.S. medical jobs.

“It’s very difficult for IMGs to get into residency in the U.S.,” he said. “I’ve seen people with medical degrees from other countries drive Uber or do odd jobs to sustain themselves here. I’ve known a few people who have left and gone back to their home country because they were not accepted into a residency.”
 

Who benefits most?

Dr. Bawa noted that the legislation would not have helped him, as he needed a visa to practice in the United States and the law does not include the sponsoring of visas. The legislation requires IMGs to show evidence of citizenship or evidence that they are legally entitled to live or work in the United States.

U.S. citizen IMGs who haven’t completed residency or who practiced in another country also are left out of the law, Dr. Carmody said.

“This law is designed to take the most accomplished cream of the crop international medical graduates with the most experience and the most sophisticated skill set and send them to Tennessee. I think that’s the intent,” he said. “But many international medical graduates are U.S. citizens who don’t have the opportunity to practice in countries other than United States or do residencies. A lot of these people are sitting on the sidelines, unable to secure residency positions. I’m sure they would be desperate for a program like this.”
 

Questions remain

“Just because the doctor can get a [temporary] license without the training doesn’t mean employers are going to be interested in sponsoring those doctors,” said Adam Cohen, an immigration attorney who practices in Memphis. “What is the inclination of these employers to hire these physicians who have undergone training outside the U.S.? And will there be skepticism on the part of employers about the competence of these doctors?”

“Hospital systems will be able to hire experienced practitioners for a very low cost,” Dr. Ansari said. “So now you have these additional bodies who can do the work of a physician, but you don’t have to pay them as much as a physician for 2 years. And because some are desperate to work, they will take lower pay as long as they have a pathway to full licensure in Tennessee. What are the protections for these physicians? Who will cover their insurance? Who will be responsible for them, the attendees? And will the attendees be willing to put their license on the line for them?”

In addition, Dr. Carmody questions what, if anything, will encourage IMGs to work in underserved areas in Tennessee after their 2 years are up and whether there will be any incentives to guide them. He wonders, too, whether the physicians will be stuck practicing in Tennessee following completion of the program.

“Will these physicians only be able to work in Tennessee?” he asked. “I think that’s probably going to be the case, because they’ll be licensed in Tennessee, but to go to another state, they would be missing the required residency training. So it might be these folks are stuck in Tennessee unless other states develop reciprocal arrangements.”

Other states would have to decide whether to recognize the Tennessee license acquired through this pathway, Rep. Kumar said.

He explained that the sponsoring sites would be responsible for providing work-hour restrictions and liability protections. There are currently no incentives in the legislation for IMGs to practice in rural, underserved areas, but the hospitals and communities there generally offer incentives when recruiting, Rep. Kumar said.

“The law definitely has the potential to be helpful,” Mr. Cohen said, “because there’s an ability to place providers in the state without having to go through the bottleneck of limited residency slots. If other states see a positive effect on Tennessee or are exploring ways to alleviate their own shortages, it’s possible [they] might follow suit.”

Rep. Kumar agreed that other states will be watching Tennessee to weigh the law’s success.

“I think the law will have to prove itself and show that Tennessee has benefited from it and that the results have been good,” he said. “We are providing a pioneering way for attracting medical graduates and making it easier for them to obtain a license. I would think other states would want to do that.”

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

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